Statutory refund of duty paid under protest cannot be denied by unjust enrichment or limitation objections.

Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is described as a self-contained refund provision that permits refund of excise duty paid under protest and refund arising from appellate or revisional relief. The text states that unjust enrichment cannot be imported as an equitable defence to defeat a clear statutory refund right. It further notes that when duty is paid under protest, the six-month limitation does not apply; later withdrawal of protest does not revive limitation, and the pendency of a parallel appeal does not sustain a limitation objection. The refund claim was therefore not barred and the objections to maintainability failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty paid under protest could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, and whether the claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11B is a self-contained provision governing refund of excise duty. Its language permits refund where duty has been paid under protest and also where refund becomes due as a result of an appellate or revisional order. The provision does not incorporate any equitable defence based on passing on the burden of duty to customers. The Court held that where the statute is clear and unambiguous, equitable considerations such as unjust enrichment cannot be imported to defeat the statutory right to refund. The petitioners had paid duty under protest, so the six-month limitation did not apply. The later withdrawal of protest did not revive limitation, and the pendency of the parallel appeal did not survive as an objection once withdrawal was sought.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment, and it was not barred by limitation. The objections to maintainability failed.

Final Conclusion: The duty collection was held refundable under the governing refund provision, and the impugned refund orders were set aside in consequence.

Ratio Decidendi: When a refund statute clearly provides for refund of duty paid under protest or as a consequence of appellate relief, equitable notions of unjust enrichment cannot be used to deny the statutory refund.

---