Refund of illegally collected excise duty upheld; limitation and unjust enrichment objections rejected for duty-paid paper products.

Amounts collected as excise duty without legal authority were held refundable in writ jurisdiction. The Court found that teleprinter paper rolls and tapes made from duty-paid printing and writing paper were not liable to further excise duty, and the refund could not be denied by demanding separate proof that the base paper had suffered duty where the department had not disputed that fact in adjudication. It also held that the later insertion of section 11B did not bar applications made earlier, because the law applicable when the mistake was discovered governed the claim. The plea of unjust enrichment failed, since money collected without legal authority cannot be retained on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of excise duty collected on teleprinter paper rolls and tapes, and whether the claim was barred by limitation or could be defeated on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were held not liable to further excise duty when made from duty-paid printing and writing paper. The Court accepted that the duty had been collected without authority of law and that the petitioner discovered the mistake only after the trade notice clarifying the legal position. It held that the refund claim could not be rejected by insisting on proof that the base paper had suffered duty, since goods available in the market are presumed to be duty paid and the department had not disputed payment in the adjudication proceedings. The Court further held that the refund claim was not defeated by the later insertion of section 11B, because the applications had been made earlier and the law applicable at the time of discovery of mistake governed the claim. The plea of unjust enrichment was rejected because money collected without legal authority cannot be retained on that ground.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the excise duty with interest, and the objections based on limitation and unjust enrichment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts collected as excise duty without legal authority are refundable in writ jurisdiction, and such restitution cannot be denied on the grounds of limitation computed from a later statutory change or on the basis of alleged unjust enrichment.

---