Refund claims fail on limitation, unjust enrichment, and prematurity where protest procedure is not properly followed.

Voluntary reversal of credit and duty payment made to claim concessional notification benefit was not treated as payment under protest because the prescribed protest procedure under Rule 233B was not followed. Refund was therefore time-barred. The claim also failed on unjust enrichment, as the assessee produced no evidence that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the principle was held applicable even for captive consumption and input duty refunds. Refund claims linked to matters still under adjudication were premature and could not be maintained before final determination. The rejection of all refund claims was sustained on limitation, unjust enrichment, and prematurity grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation despite the assessee's assertion that the duty and credit reversals were made under protest; (ii) Whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment; and (iii) Whether the refund claims of Rs. 89,726 and Rs. 2,96,491 were premature.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation despite the assessee's assertion that the duty and credit reversals were made under protest.

Analysis: The assessee voluntarily opted for concessional duty under the notification and itself reversed credit and paid part of the amount from PLA to satisfy the notification condition. The record did not show any departmental demand or coercive direction requiring such payment. A mere request in a letter to treat the debit as protest did not amount to compliance with the prescribed protest procedure under Rule 233B, and the statutory requirements for payment under protest were not met.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and the plea of payment under protest was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The claim was for refund of duty that had been paid through reversal of credit and PLA debit. The assessee did not produce evidence showing that the burden of duty had not been passed on in the pricing of the final products. The principle of unjust enrichment was held applicable even in cases involving captive consumption and refund of duty paid on inputs.

Conclusion: The refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund claims of Rs. 89,726 and Rs. 2,96,491 were premature.

Analysis: Those amounts were linked to matters still under adjudication at the relevant time. Refund could be sought only after completion of adjudication, not before the dispute itself was finally determined.

Conclusion: The refund claims were premature and were rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of all refund claims was sustained in full, and the appeals failed on limitation, unjust enrichment, and prematurity grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary reversal of credit or payment of duty made to avail an exemption or concessional notification is not payment under protest unless the statutory protest procedure is followed, and refund remains subject to limitation and unjust enrichment unless the claimant proves otherwise.

---