Refund claims require independent limitation compliance and proof of no duty pass-through; unjust enrichment applies even to capital goods.

A purchaser seeking refund of duty must file its own claim within the statutory limitation period, and a manufacturer's earlier payment under protest does not extend time for the purchaser. Letters not treated as refund applications cannot preserve limitation, so a delayed claim is time-barred. The claimant must also prove that the duty burden was not passed on; failing that, the refund is barred by unjust enrichment. That bar applies even where the goods are capital goods or are captively consumed. The refund rejection was therefore sustained on both limitation and unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the purchaser's refund claim was barred by limitation despite the manufacturer having paid duty under protest; and (ii) whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, including in relation to capital goods.

Issue (i): Whether the purchaser's refund claim was barred by limitation despite the manufacturer having paid duty under protest.

Analysis: The right to seek refund was held to arise only after the protest stood vacated and the purchaser, claiming in its own capacity, was required to file a refund claim within the statutory period. The purchaser's letters were not treated as refund applications, and the claim was filed long after the relevant dates. The benefit of the manufacturer's protest could not save a delayed claim filed beyond the statutory period under the refund provision.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be time-barred and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, including in relation to capital goods.

Analysis: The refund claimant was required to establish that the duty burden had not been passed on further. The evidence showed that the incidence of duty had not been retained by the purchaser, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was applied even where the goods were capital goods or captively consumed. The absence of proof that the burden was not passed on was fatal to the claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be hit by unjust enrichment and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund claim was sustained, and the appeal failed on both limitation and unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser claiming refund must independently satisfy the statutory requirements of refund limitation and prove that the duty burden was not passed on, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies even to capital goods.

---