Refund limitation and unjust enrichment required fresh factual verification before deciding the claim.

Refund limitation turned on whether the first application dated 02.06.2011 had been received by the Department; because receipt or non-receipt was not clearly established, factual verification was required. The appellate authority went beyond the original rejection, which had rested only on limitation, by treating verification of payment as irrelevant. The refund claim was also subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection order was therefore not sustained and the matter was remanded to the Refund Sanctioning Authority for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity and examining evidence of double payment and unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in light of the asserted first application dated 02.06.2011, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Refund Sanctioning Authority.

Analysis: The date of the first refund application was treated as crucial because, if that application had been received by the Department, the claim would fall within time. The record did not clearly establish receipt or non-receipt of that application, and the matter therefore required factual verification. The appellate authority's reasoning that limitation was irrelevant because payment itself could not be verified was held to travel beyond the scope of the original rejection, which had proceeded only on limitation. The claim was also noted to be subject to the statutory requirement of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the refund claim could not be sustained. The matter was remanded to the Refund Sanctioning Authority for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity and after examining the evidence regarding double payment and the statutory bar of unjust enrichment.

---