Refund under protest survives limitation and unjust enrichment where appellate order holds the activity non-excisable.

Duty paid under protest, followed by an appellate finding that the activity was non-excisable, gave rise to a substantive refund right that could not be defeated by limitation provisions or procedural defects in protest compliance. The refund claims were therefore maintainable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar relief because there was no material showing that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund rejection was consequently unsustainable and refund of the duty paid was due.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the excise refund provisions despite the duty having been paid under protest and the refund arising from an appellate order; (ii) Whether the refund could be denied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the excise refund provisions despite the duty having been paid under protest and the refund arising from an appellate order.

Analysis: The petitioner had expressly reserved the right to claim refund while paying duty, which was treated as payment under protest. The procedural requirements under the protest rule did not defeat the substantive right to refund, particularly when the refund arose because the appellate authority held the activity to be non-excisable. In such a situation, the limitation provision was held inapplicable to deny refund.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not barred by limitation and were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund could be denied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The duty had been paid under protest and the refund followed the appellate determination that no excise duty was payable. No material was produced to establish that the burden had been passed on to customers. The doctrine could not be used to nullify the refund in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refund rejection was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the duty paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under protest and a refund becomes due pursuant to an appellate order holding the activity non-excisable, limitation provisions and procedural irregularities in protest compliance cannot be used to defeat the substantive right to refund, and unjust enrichment cannot be presumed without proof of passing on the burden.

---