Court-directed bank guarantee amounts treated as security deposit, so unjust enrichment did not bar refund.

Money realised under bank guarantees furnished pursuant to court directions was treated as a security deposit and not as excise duty, because it was paid in compliance with judicial orders rather than voluntarily as duty. On that basis, the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund claim. The refund of the excess amount was therefore admissible in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount realised through bank guarantees furnished pursuant to court directions could be treated as excise duty so as to attract the bar of unjust enrichment in a refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim was found to relate to excess amount realised under bank guarantees, and not to duty voluntarily paid by the assessee. Since the amount represented security furnished in compliance with court orders, it retained the character of a deposit and not payment of duty. The principle of unjust enrichment therefore did not apply to such a refund claim.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was inapplicable, and the refund was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Money furnished under a court-directed bank guarantee is a security deposit and not duty payment, so refund of such amount is not barred by unjust enrichment.

---