Refund of handloom cess cannot be denied by importing Central Excise unjust enrichment provisions where the levy statute contains no such machinery.

Handloom cess levied under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953 was held not to attract the refund and unjust enrichment provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 because the Khadi Act contained no machinery adopting those provisions. Unlike other enactments that expressly incorporated Central Excise procedures, the Khadi Act had its own scheme for implementing the levy. As a result, Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act could not be imported to deny refund, and the assessee's refund claim remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of handloom cess collected under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953 could be denied by applying the amended refund provisions and the doctrine of unjust enrichment from the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The cess was levied under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development Act, 1953, which contained no machinery provision adopting the refund and exemption provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 for levy and collection of handloom cess. By contrast, other enactments such as the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 and the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 specifically incorporated the Central Excise machinery provisions. The absence of any such incorporation in the Khadi Act, coupled with its own separate provision for carrying out the Act's purposes, meant that the refund-related provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act could not be imported.

Conclusion: The amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked to deny the refund, and the assessee's claim remained allowable. The Revenue's challenge failed.

---