Refund of duty paid twice on reprocessed sugar under Rule 173H was not barred by limitation or unjust enrichment.

Duty paid again on clearance of sugar after reprocessing under Rule 173H was treated as wrongly paid, so the assessee could seek refund under the normal limitation rules of Section 11B. The special relevant-date explanation for goods reprocessed under Rule 173L did not apply, because permission had been granted under Rule 173H. On the facts considered, the refund claim was not barred by limitation and the objection of unjust enrichment was not attracted where duty had been paid twice on the same quantity. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration under the correct legal framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid a second time on clearance of sugar after reprocessing under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied.

Analysis: Permission for reprocessing had been granted under Rule 173H and not under Rule 173L. In that situation, duty was not required to be paid again on clearance after reprocessing. If duty was paid wrongly, the assessee was entitled to claim refund within the time limit prescribed by Section 11B. The special relevant-date explanation applicable to goods received for reprocessing under Rule 173L did not govern the present case. The refund claim therefore had to be examined on its merits under the normal refund framework applicable to Rule 173H. Since duty had been paid twice on the same quantity, the objection based on unjust enrichment was not attracted in the circumstances considered.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not rejected on the ground of limitation or unjust enrichment and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration under the law.

---