Statutory refund mechanism bars writ relief for excise duty refunds when limitation and unjust enrichment defeat the claim.

Refund of excise duty alleged to have been paid in excess must be sought under the statutory refund mechanism within the prescribed limitation period, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not ordinarily be used to bypass that scheme. Where the refund claim is time-barred and the duty burden has been passed on, the bar of unjust enrichment also defeats recovery. The High Court therefore upheld rejection of the refund claim and dismissed the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable for claiming refund of excise duty alleged to have been paid in excess, and whether such refund claim was barred by limitation and defeated by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The claim for refund arose under the excise law and had to be pursued in accordance with the statutory mechanism prescribed for refund, within the limitation period fixed by that law. The existence of writ jurisdiction did not justify bypassing the statutory scheme, particularly where the refund claim had already been rejected on limitation and the duty had been passed on, attracting the bar of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for refund of the excise duty claimed to have been paid in excess, and the refund was also unavailable on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund rejection failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty allegedly paid in excess must be pursued under the statutory refund provisions within the prescribed limitation, and writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to circumvent that scheme, especially where the burden of duty has already been passed on.

---