Illegal duty refund remains available when limitation does not apply and the claimant proves duty incidence was not passed on.

Refund of illegally collected export duty was not time-barred where the levy had been declared unconstitutional and the SEZ developer pursued the claim before the SEZ and customs authorities as directed. Amounts forcibly collected under an illegal levy remain refundable despite ordinary statutory refund limitation. Unjust enrichment did not bar refund because contractor documents, payment evidence and Chartered Accountant certificates showed that the SEZ developer bore the duty incidence as the ultimate buyer. As the steel was used for SEZ development and was neither resold nor used in goods manufactured for sale, the statutory presumption that duty incidence was passed on stood rebutted. The developer was entitled to refund in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim for export duty illegally collected from an SEZ developer was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim for export duty illegally collected from an SEZ developer was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The duty levy had been declared unconstitutional and that determination attained finality. The assessee had pursued refund before the SEZ authority and thereafter before the customs authorities as directed by them. On the record, the claim could not be treated as delayed. Further, an amount forcibly collected under an illegal levy is refundable notwithstanding the ordinary statutory refund limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The assessee established through contractor documentation, payment evidence and Chartered Accountant certificates that it bore the export-duty incidence. The steel was used for development of the SEZ and was neither resold nor used in manufacture of goods for sale. As the assessee was the ultimate buyer and had not passed the incidence to another person, the statutory presumption of passing on duty incidence did not apply.

Conclusion: Unjust enrichment was not established and could not bar refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of the illegally collected duty in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant that proves it bore an illegally collected duty as the ultimate buyer and did not pass its incidence to another person is entitled to refund; the statutory presumption of passing on duty is rebutted by cogent evidence.

---