Unjust enrichment cannot defeat statutory excise refund unless the Act expressly authorises that denial.

A statutory refund authority under Section 11B cannot refuse refund of excise duty already held to have been illegally collected by invoking unjust enrichment unless the statute expressly confers that power. The text distinguishes equitable refusals available to courts exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 from the limited powers of a refund acting within the statutory scheme. Because the refund claim was timely and the duty had been found refundable after exclusion of packing cost from assessable value, the show-cause notice based on unjust enrichment was held to be without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector, while dealing with a refund application under Section 11B, could refuse refund of excise duty already found to have been illegally collected by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment, and whether the show-cause notice issued on that basis was sustainable.

Analysis: The refund application was undisputedly within time and the duty had been held refundable after the appellate authority and the Tribunal concluded that the packing cost was not includible in the assessable value. The power under Section 11B was confined to the statutory scheme governing refund, and the Assistant Collector had no authority to travel beyond that scheme. The Court distinguished cases where courts exercising equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 may decline relief on the ground of unjust enrichment, holding that such discretion is not available to a statutory authority whose powers are limited by the Act. The authorities relied upon in the notice were found inapplicable because they either concerned court-driven discretionary relief or involved an express statutory provision authorising refusal of refund, which was absent here.

Conclusion: The Assistant Collector could not refuse refund by invoking unjust enrichment, and the notice was without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory refund authority cannot deny refund of duty illegally collected on the ground of unjust enrichment unless the statute itself expressly confers that power; equitable refusal of refund is confined to courts exercising discretionary constitutional jurisdiction.

---