Refund of adjudication deposits follows setting aside of demand, with no bar of limitation, unjust enrichment, or lack of permission for credit.

Refund of amounts deposited during adjudication or in compliance with a stay order, after the underlying demand is set aside, is treated as consequential relief and cannot be denied on limitation or unjust enrichment. Such deposits are not regarded as duty recovered from customers merely because they were paid to the Revenue. Where the refund is allowable, the assessee may also take credit of the refundable deposit, and the fact that credit was taken suo motu without separate permission does not justify denial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund claimed as a consequential relief after the Tribunal set aside the demand could be rejected as time-barred and on the ground of unjust enrichment; (ii) whether credit of the amount deposited during adjudication and in compliance with a stay order could be denied on the ground that it was taken without permission.

Issue (i): Whether refund claimed as a consequential relief after the Tribunal set aside the demand could be rejected as time-barred and on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The amount in dispute had been deposited during adjudication proceedings and a further amount was deposited pursuant to the Tribunal's stay order. A refund sought as a consequence of the appellate order setting aside the demand cannot be rejected on limitation when the deposit was made in the course of the proceedings and the claim arises from the relief granted by the appellate forum. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also does not apply to such deposits, as amounts deposited during adjudication are not treated as duty recovered from customers merely because they were paid to the Revenue.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on limitation or unjust enrichment, and the assessee was entitled to the amount deposited.

Issue (ii): Whether credit of the amount deposited during adjudication and in compliance with a stay order could be denied on the ground that it was taken without permission.

Analysis: Once the demand had been set aside and the deposits were held refundable as consequential relief, the assessee was entitled to take credit of those amounts. The fact that the credit was taken suo motu without separate permission did not justify denial when the underlying payment was only a deposit made during adjudication and under the stay order.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to take such credit.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the assessee succeeded on both the refund and credit issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts deposited during adjudication proceedings or pursuant to a stay order, when claimed back after the underlying demand is set aside, are refundable as consequential relief and are not hit by unjust enrichment or limitation, and the assessee may take credit of such refundable deposits.

---