Pre-adjudication deposit treated as refundable deposit, not duty, so limitation and unjust enrichment did not bar refund.

An amount paid after a show cause notice and before adjudication, with express intimation that refund would be sought if the assessee succeeded, was treated as a deposit pending finalisation of proceedings rather than a final duty payment. On that basis, the limitation period applicable to refund of duty did not govern the claim, and the requirement of payment under protest was held inapplicable to such a deposit. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also held not to apply to amounts deposited during adjudication proceedings. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount paid during the pendency of show cause notice and before adjudication was a deposit or duty, and whether the refund claim was barred by limitation or affected by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The amount was paid in response to the show cause notice before adjudication was completed, with an express intimation that refund would be claimed if the assessee succeeded. Such payment was treated as a deposit made pending finalisation of proceedings and not as a final duty payment. On that basis, the limitation applicable to refund of duty did not govern the claim, and the rule requiring payment under protest was held inapplicable to such a deposit. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also held not to apply to amounts deposited during adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred and was maintainable; the rejection of refund was not sustainable, and the assessee succeeded.

---