Duty paid under protest and unjust enrichment scrutiny govern refund claims under the amended refund law.

A refund claim based on duty paid under protest cannot be rejected as time-barred where the protest was duly lodged, and minor procedural lapses in the protest formalities do not defeat the substantive claim. At the same time, pending refund claims remain subject to the amended refund provision on unjust enrichment, requiring scrutiny of whether the duty burden was passed on. Where the burden has been passed on, refund cannot be granted to the assessee and must be dealt with under the statutory mechanism. The limitation rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh examination on unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation despite payment of duty under protest; and (ii) whether the refund claim had to be examined for unjust enrichment under the amended refund provision.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation despite payment of duty under protest.

Analysis: The letter of protest had been filed and the duty payments were endorsed as under protest. Minor procedural lapses in compliance with the protest procedure could not defeat the substantive fact that protest had been lodged. On that basis, the claim could not be rejected as time-barred.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim had to be examined for unjust enrichment under the amended refund provision.

Analysis: The amended refund provision applied retrospectively to pending claims and required scrutiny of whether the duty burden had been passed on. Where the burden had been passed on, refund could not be granted to the assessee and the amount would have to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory mechanism for such cases. The authority was therefore required to re-examine the claim on this aspect and permit evidence on passing of the burden.

Conclusion: The claim had to be reconsidered on the footing of unjust enrichment, with appropriate refund to be sanctioned only after such examination.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the refund claim on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim under the amended refund law on unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim based on payment under protest cannot be rejected as time-barred when protest is duly lodged, but all pending refund claims remain subject to scrutiny under the amended doctrine of unjust enrichment.

---