Refund of Extra Duty Deposit upheld on limitation and unjust enrichment grounds, with interest awarded on delayed payment.

A refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit was found not barred by limitation because the relevant Bill of Entry had been finally assessed within the one-year refund framework. The tribunal also held that unjust enrichment did not apply where the importer's books showed the amount as recoverable from customs and the deposit was supported by a loan from the promoter company with repayment evidence; the contrary finding rested on an incorrect financial year. As the refund was admissible to the claimant, credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund did not survive, and interest was payable on the delayed refund. The appeal succeeded and the transfer order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the amount was hit by unjust enrichment and liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund; and whether interest was payable on the refund amount.

Analysis: The refund claim related to Extra Duty Deposit paid against a Bill of Entry that was finally assessed within the period relevant for refund purposes. The earlier view that the claim was time-barred was found unsustainable on the facts, as the finalisation of assessment for the concerned Bill of Entry was within the one-year framework. On unjust enrichment, the appellant's books for the relevant financial year reflected the amount as recoverable from customs, and the deposit was supported by a loan transaction from the promoter company, with evidence of repayment. The finding that the burden had been passed on was held to be based on an erroneous reference to the wrong financial year and was not supported by the record. Since the refund was found to be admissible to the appellant, the question of crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund did not survive. Interest was also held payable on delayed refund in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be within limitation, not hit by unjust enrichment, and refundable to the appellant along with interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order directing transfer of the refundable amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside, resulting in refund relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Extra Duty Deposit paid on provisional assessment, when shown as recoverable by the importer and supported by evidence that the burden was not passed on, is refundable to the claimant and is not to be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment; interest follows where refund is delayed.

---