Refund claims remain subject to unjust enrichment where the amended statutory scheme expressly brings them within Section 11B.

Refund claims already sanctioned and paid may still be examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment where the amended statutory scheme expressly incorporates Section 11B. The fact that payment had been made before the 1991 amendment did not, by itself, exclude that inquiry. The Tribunal noted that the amended provision, read with the Supreme Court authority cited in the text, permitted recovery or reassessment of refunds found unsustainable, and that treating the Department's appeal as infructuous would undermine its statutory appellate remedy. The refund was therefore treated as liable to scrutiny under unjust enrichment, and the Department's challenge was not rejected for want of a specific reference in the notice or appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund already ordered and paid before the 1991 amendment could be reopened and subjected to the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11C read with Section 11B, and whether the Department's appeal could be treated as infructuous for want of a specific reference to unjust enrichment in the show cause notice and grounds of appeal.

Analysis: Section 11C as amended in 1991 expressly refers to the application of Section 11B, so the statutory scheme brings refund claims within the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The fact that refund had already been sanctioned and paid did not, by itself, exclude the applicability of that doctrine. The amended provision, read with the Supreme Court's ruling in Assistant Collector of Customs v. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co., recognised that even refunded amounts in closed matters may be required to be paid back if the refund is found unsustainable. The Tribunal also held that accepting the assessee's objection would defeat the Department's statutory right of appeal and would not harmonise the scheme of Sections 35A and 35B.

Conclusion: The refund was held liable to be tested under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the Department's challenge was not rejected on the ground that the refund had already been paid or that no specific reference to Section 11B had been made in the notice or appeal.

Final Conclusion: The decision favoured reopening the refunded claim for scrutiny under unjust enrichment and upheld the Department's right to pursue the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim, even if already sanctioned and paid, can be subjected to the doctrine of unjust enrichment where the governing statutory provision expressly incorporates Section 11B and the appellate remedy remains available to the Department.

---