Consequential refund claims are not time-barred, but unjust enrichment must still be examined before sanctioning refund.

Refund arising consequentially from a favourable appellate order is not defeated by limitation at the stage of claiming such refund. The Tribunal held that the refund was consequential and therefore not time-barred, but the original authority had to examine whether the duty burden had been passed on to customers under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The matter was remitted for decision on unjust enrichment alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether time bar applies to a refund claim arising consequentially from an appellate order, and whether the refund could be sanctioned without examining unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appeals concerned refund claims filed after receipt of favourable appellate orders. The Tribunal held that a consequential refund flows from the appellate relief and is not defeated by limitation at that stage. The question whether the burden of duty had been passed on to customers, however, had to be examined by the original authority in the context of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be consequential and not time-barred, but the matter was remitted for decision on unjust enrichment alone.

---