Double duty payment treated as account adjustment, not time-barred refund claim; unjust enrichment held inapplicable.

Where duty was paid twice for the same liability, once through Cenvat credit and again through PLA on the Department's direction, the Tribunal treated the later payment as an accountal adjustment rather than a fresh refund claim. It held that the assessee was entitled to restore the earlier credit and that the claim could not be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal also held that unjust enrichment had no application on these facts. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund or re-credit of duty paid twice, first through Cenvat credit and again through PLA on the Department's direction, could be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied.

Analysis: The appellant had already discharged the duty through Cenvat credit and, after being asked by the Department to pay again through PLA, sought restoration of the earlier credit amount. The double payment was not in dispute. On these facts, the payment through PLA was treated as an accountal adjustment and not as a fresh refund claim attracting the ordinary limitation bar. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that, where duty is paid twice for the same liability, the assessee is entitled to take back the earlier credit and the claim cannot be rejected merely as time barred. The Tribunal also noted the consistent view that unjust enrichment does not apply in such a situation.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim as time-barred was unsustainable and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with relief flowing to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid twice for the same liability and the second payment is made on the Department's direction, the matter is one of accountal adjustment rather than a refund claim barred by limitation, and unjust enrichment has no application.

---