Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of a statutory pre-deposit made to pursue an appeal.

A statutory pre-deposit made to pursue an appeal under the Central Excise Act is not treated as duty payment, so the refund restrictions in Section 11B and the doctrine of unjust enrichment do not apply. Once the amount is characterised as a pre-deposit, refund cannot be denied on that basis. The separate natural justice issue did not survive after that finding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to refund of an amount deposited as a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount in question was found to have been deposited as a pre-deposit in the appellate proceedings. The settled legal position applied was that a pre-deposit made to avail the statutory remedy of appeal is not a duty payment and therefore does not attract the refund restrictions under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Once the amount was characterised as a pre-deposit, the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked to deny refund. In view of this conclusion, the separate question relating to natural justice did not survive for consideration.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee; unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to refund of the pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of an amount deposited as a statutory pre-deposit for pursuing an appeal is not governed by the unjust enrichment bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---