Refund claims survive finality on limitation, protest payment treatment, and proof that duty incidence was not passed on.

A refund claim was not defeated by a limitation objection that had already been decided against the Revenue and had attained finality, so the point could not be reopened. Duty paid during the pendency of the dispute was treated as payment under protest because the assessee's letter recorded that position, and procedural objections could not defeat the refund claim. On the evidence of buyers' correspondence showing that no duty burden had been passed on through supplementary invoices, unjust enrichment did not apply. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the excise duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plea of limitation could be raised again in the refund proceedings; (ii) whether the duty payment made during the pendency of the dispute was to be treated as payment under protest; and (iii) whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment on the facts proved by the correspondence from the buyers.

Issue (i): Whether the plea of limitation could be raised again in the refund proceedings.

Analysis: The finding on limitation had already been recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and had attained finality as it was not challenged by the Revenue. A party that accepted that finding could not reopen the same point in a later appeal.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty payment made during the pendency of the dispute was to be treated as payment under protest.

Analysis: The payment was made while the dispute was pending and the assessee's letter recorded that the balance duty was paid under protest. In such circumstances, the payment was treated as one under protest, and procedural objections based on limitation or related formal requirements could not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment on the facts proved by the correspondence from the buyers.

Analysis: The buyers' letters stated that the supplies were treated as exempt and that no excise duty had been paid by them to the assessee through supplementary invoices. On that material, the assessee had not passed on the duty burden and the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the refund order failed, and the assessee remained entitled to refund of the excise duty.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim is not defeated by limitation objections already concluded against the Revenue, and where the evidence shows that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund.

---