Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law may be pursued through writ relief and restored despite limitation objections.

Where excise duty is collected without authority of law, a writ petition under Article 226 may be maintained for consequential refund, especially when refund follows quashing of quasi-judicial orders. The limitation period in the Central Excise Rules does not govern such a claim when the payment was outside the statutory scheme and not merely a case of error or misconstruction within the rule. A plea of unjust enrichment, if not raised before the authorities or the single Judge, cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time on appeal, and payment under a mistaken view of law or fact does not by itself defeat restitution. A show-cause notice seeking to recover a refunded amount may be interfered with where it attempts to unsettle a final appellate order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 226 was maintainable for refund of excise duty paid; (ii) whether the refund claim was governed by the limitation provisions of the Central Excise Rules; (iii) whether the assessee was disentitled to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment; and (iv) whether the show-cause notice issued to recover the amount refunded could be interfered with at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 226 was maintainable for refund of excise duty paid.

Analysis: The refund claim was coupled with a challenge to the orders of the departmental authorities, and the Court accepted that a writ petition can be entertained to enforce refund of duty collected without authority of law. The reliance placed on the general proposition against entertaining a bare refund petition was held not to bar relief in a case where consequential refund followed the quashing of quasi-judicial orders.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was governed by the limitation provisions of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The Court held that the excess duty had been paid outside the Act and without authority of law. In that situation, the claim was not one of inadvertence, error or misconstruction within the refund rule, and the time limit contained in that rule did not apply. The Court distinguished cases dealing with payments made within the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not controlled by the limitation provisions of the Central Excise Rules, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee was disentitled to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The plea had not been raised before the authorities or the single Judge and was therefore not permitted to be urged for the first time in appeal. In any event, the Court accepted that payment of duty under a mistaken view of law or fact does not by itself amount to unjust enrichment so as to defeat restitution of money collected without authority.

Conclusion: The plea of unjust enrichment failed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the show-cause notice issued to recover the amount refunded could be interfered with at the threshold.

Analysis: The notice was found to be an attempt to circumvent an appellate order that had become final. The Court held that Article 226 empowered interference in an appropriate case and that the attempt to undo the appellate relief justified immediate judicial intervention.

Conclusion: Interference with the show-cause notice was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in entirety, and the refund relief granted to the assessee was upheld while the recovery notice was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty has been collected without authority of law, the refund claim is not confined by the refund rule's limitation period, a writ petition for consequential refund is maintainable, and restitution cannot be defeated merely by an unraised plea of unjust enrichment.

---