Refund limitation and unjust enrichment turn on concurrent factual findings of protest and non-passing of duty incidence.

Concurrent factual findings that duty was paid under protest justified rejection of the limitation objection, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not by itself displace that finding for refund purposes. The Court also accepted the evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on, including the composite fixed price, Chartered Accountant's certificate, and profit and loss account, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. As no perversity or material infirmity was shown in either finding, the Tribunal's refund order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for non-compliance with Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite the plea that duty had been paid under protest; (ii) Whether the assessee established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on so as to defeat unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for non-compliance with Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 despite the plea that duty had been paid under protest

Analysis: The authorities below recorded a factual finding that the duty was paid under protest. On that basis, the limitation objection was rejected. The Court found no reason to disturb that concurrent factual conclusion and did not accept the Revenue's contention that absence of compliance with Rule 233B by itself displaced the finding of protest for the purpose of refund limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and the objection based on Rule 233B failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on so as to defeat unjust enrichment

Analysis: The materials showed that the price was composite and fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the duty element was absorbed by the assessee. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and the profit and loss account were relied upon to support the finding that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. The Court accepted that factual assessment and found no infirmity in the conclusion on unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The assessee had established absence of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order allowing refund was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge failed on both limitation and unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings that duty was paid under protest and that the duty incidence was not passed on will not be interfered with in appeal unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by material on record.

---