Limitation and unjust enrichment in Central Excise refunds apply even to captive consumption claims.

Refund claims under Central Excise law must be filed within the prescribed six-month limitation period computed from the relevant date, which was taken as the date of duty payment; on the recorded facts, the claim was time-barred and no substantial question of law arose for reference. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also applied to refund claims involving captive consumption, and was held not to be confined to sales to outside buyers; the refund could not be sustained merely because the goods were not sold in the open market. The request for reference was rejected and the refund denial remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reference petition could be entertained when the refund claim was held to be time-barred under the statutory limitation under the Central Excise law; and (ii) whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund claims relating to goods used for captive consumption.

Issue (i): whether the reference petition could be entertained when the refund claim was held to be time-barred under the statutory limitation under the Central Excise law.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined with reference to the statutory period prescribed for refund applications and the concept of the relevant date. The finding recorded was that the claim had to be made within six months from the relevant date, and the relevant date was to be computed from the date of payment of duty. On the facts recorded, the payment fell beyond the permissible period, and the limitation issue was treated as a mixed question of fact and law with no substantial question of law arising for reference.

Conclusion: The limitation objection succeeded and the reference on this ground failed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund claims relating to goods used for captive consumption.

Analysis: The claim of refund was also tested on the principle of unjust enrichment. It was held that the principle is not confined to sales to outside buyers and can extend even to captive consumption cases. The refund claim therefore could not be sustained merely because the goods were not sold in the open market.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment was held applicable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law was found to arise for reference, and the request for reference was rejected, leaving the refund denial undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the Central Excise law must be filed within the prescribed limitation computed from the relevant date, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment can apply even where the goods are captively consumed.

---