Writ refund of duty collected without authority of law is not barred by Rule 11 limitation or unsupported unjust enrichment plea.

Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law cannot be defeated in writ jurisdiction by invoking Rule 11 limitation meant for departmental proceedings; the bar applies before statutory authorities, not as a defence to retain unlawful collections under Article 226. The objection based on limitation therefore failed. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not defeat the refund claim because it had not been properly raised below, required disputed questions of fact, and was unsupported by reliable evidence that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund claim was accordingly upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund claim for excise duty collected without authority of law could be rejected in writ jurisdiction on the ground of limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) whether the refund could be denied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether a refund claim for excise duty collected without authority of law could be rejected in writ jurisdiction on the ground of limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed by Rule 11 was held to be available to the department in proceedings before the statutory authorities, but not as a defence when the assessee seeks refund in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that duty recovered without authority of law cannot be retained by pleading the statutory limitation applicable to departmental proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection based on Rule 11 failed and the refund could not be denied on limitation.

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

Analysis: The plea of unjust enrichment was not accepted because it had not been raised before the single judge and required disputed questions of fact. The Court also found that no reliable material had been produced to establish that the duty burden had been passed on to customers, and an unauthorised affidavit tendered without service on the other side was ordered to be taken off the record.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not defeat the respondents' claim for refund.

Final Conclusion: The respondents were held entitled to refund of the excise duty collected without authority of law, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not bar a writ claim for refund of duty recovered without authority of law, and a plea of unjust enrichment cannot succeed without proper factual foundation and admissible proof.

---