Refund limitation and unjust enrichment in excise duty claims depend on when exemption entitlement actually accrues.

Refund of excise duty on drinking chocolate powder turned on when the exemption entitlement accrued. The exemption could be claimed only at the end of the financial year, once clearances were known not to have crossed the prescribed ceiling, so the right to refund arose on that date and the later refund claim could not be partly rejected as time-barred on the department's approach. The payment-under-protest argument was irrelevant because the dispute concerned deferred exemption entitlement, not liability or rate of duty. The objection of unjust enrichment also could not be decided on the material available because the necessary data was not produced. The limitation-based rejection was therefore unsustainable, and refund for the relevant period was due.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excise duty on drinking chocolate powder was barred by limitation under the Central Excise Rules, and whether the refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The exemption notification could be effectively claimed only at the end of the financial year, when it became clear that clearances had not exceeded the prescribed limit. The right to refund therefore accrued only on the close of the financial year, and the refund application filed thereafter could not be partly rejected as time-barred on the basis applied by the departmental authorities. The contention based on payment under protest was inapplicable because the dispute was not about the liability or rate of duty but about entitlement to exemption becoming available only after the yearly ceiling was known. The plea of unjust enrichment also could not be examined on the available material, as the necessary data was not produced.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection of part of the refund claim was unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to refund of the duty for the relevant period.

---