Refund suit limitation runs from invalidation of the levy, while civil court jurisdiction survives when no effective alternative remedy exists.

Limitation for refund of excise duty paid under protest runs from accrual of the right to sue, not from the dates of payment, where the levy is under challenge and refund becomes claimable only after the levy is declared illegal; the refund suit was therefore within time. The civil court retained jurisdiction because the departmental refusal left no effective alternative remedy, and the pending challenge to the earlier decision did not defeat maintainability. The plea of unjust enrichment also failed because the evidence showed the duty had not been passed on to customers or distributors, entitling the plaintiff to recover the refund with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff's suit for refund of excise duty paid under protest was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the suit was not maintainable or the civil court lacked jurisdiction; (iii) whether the claim was defeated by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff's suit for refund of excise duty paid under protest was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The relevant limitation rule depended on when the right to sue for refund accrued. Although a suit for refund of illegal duty ordinarily falls within the residuary three-year period, the Court held that the right to refund in the present case did not arise on the dates of payment, because the levy itself was under challenge in pending proceedings and the plaintiff could not have effectively claimed refund until the levy was declared illegal. The cause of action therefore arose only when the levy was struck down, not when the money was paid.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation and the entire refund claim was within time.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was not maintainable or the civil court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: Once the departmental authorities refused refund, the plaintiff had no effective remedy except to sue for recovery. The pendency of further challenge to the earlier decision did not destroy the plaintiff's right to pursue the civil claim. The objections to maintainability and jurisdiction were therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and the civil court had jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): whether the claim was defeated by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the excise duty charged from the plaintiff had not been recovered from customers or distributors. There was no material to disbelieve that evidence or to show passing on of the burden.

Conclusion: The plea of unjust enrichment failed.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire refund with interest, while the Union's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the right to seek refund of duty depends on a subsequent judicial determination invalidating the levy, limitation runs from the accrual of that right and not from the dates of payment; and a civil refund suit is maintainable where no alternative remedy is available and the duty burden has not been passed on.

---