Refund of excess duty payment cannot be denied only on limitation; evidence and unjust enrichment still require fresh scrutiny.

An excess payment made during investigation was held not to be denied refund solely on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, once the excess payment is established. However, the refund claim could not be sanctioned on the existing record because the supporting materials were found insufficient, the chartered accountant's certificate was treated as self-serving, and unjust enrichment had to be examined before any refund could be granted. The matter therefore required fresh adjudication on proof and enrichment before reconsideration of the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess amount paid during investigation, and whether the refund claim could be rejected as time-barred or for want of adequate proof on merits.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from excess tax payment made during investigation. The time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be invoked to deny refund of an amount paid in excess, since such a claim was not liable to be rejected merely on limitation once the excess payment was established. At the same time, the materials produced in support of the claim were found to be insufficient, and the chartered accountant's certificate was treated as a self-serving document. The claim also required examination on the aspect of unjust enrichment and supporting evidence before any refund could be sanctioned.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not rejectable solely on limitation, but the matter required fresh adjudication on supporting evidence and unjust enrichment; the assessee was entitled to a reconsideration of the claim.

---