Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law may be enforced despite unjust enrichment objections and writ-based relief claims.

Excise duty collected under protest without authority of law is stated to be refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was rejected as a bar to such refund. The text also states that withdrawal of the refund claim did not defeat relief where the statutory refund right was pursued through a writ petition under Article 226. It further notes that, once entitlement to refund was established, insistence on a bank guarantee had no basis and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty recovered without authority of law could be refused as a refund on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. (ii) Whether refund could be declined on the ground that the refund claim had been withdrawn and the relief was sought through writ jurisdiction. (iii) Whether the authorities could insist on a bank guarantee as a condition for refund.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty recovered without authority of law could be refused as a refund on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules entitled the assessee to refund of duty collected under protest without authority of law. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was rejected as an impediment to such refund, and the view supporting refund was followed in preference to the contrary opinion.

Conclusion: The objection based on unjust enrichment failed, and refund was held to be payable to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be declined on the ground that the refund claim had been withdrawn and the relief was sought through writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The withdrawal of the refund prayer was not accepted as a bar to relief because the relief had not been effectively withdrawn by the Bench, and the assessee remained entitled to seek enforcement of the statutory right to refund through the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied on this ground, and relief in terms of the refund prayer was granted.

Issue (iii): Whether the authorities could insist on a bank guarantee as a condition for refund.

Analysis: Since the duty had been recovered without authority of law and the entitlement to refund was established, no equitable basis existed for imposing a bank guarantee merely because a further challenge might be pursued.

Conclusion: The request for a bank guarantee was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to refund of the duty collected under protest was upheld in full, and the respondents were directed to make the refund within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty collected without authority of law cannot be retained on the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the statutory right to refund under the excise law can be enforced through writ jurisdiction.

---