Unjust enrichment applies to refund claims already paid, and closed refund matters remain open to appellate scrutiny.

Where the statute expressly links refund claims to Section 11B, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refunds covered by that framework, even if the refund was sanctioned and paid before the 1991 amendment. The amended provision also permits such closed refund matters to be examined in departmental appeal, because excluding them would undermine the statutory right of appeal. The legal effect is that a previously paid refund is not beyond scrutiny and must be tested against the unjust enrichment requirement under the governing refund provisions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to a refund already ordered and paid before the 1991 amendment, and whether such refund can still be examined in departmental appeal.

Analysis: Section 11C as amended expressly refers to sub-section (2) of Section 11B, thereby attracting the doctrine of unjust enrichment to refunds covered by the notification. The refund in the present matter had already been sanctioned and paid before the amendment, but that circumstance did not exclude the refund from scrutiny under the amended legal framework. The legal effect of the amendment, read with the Supreme Court's treatment of refunded cases, is that even closed refund matters may be tested against unjust enrichment. Accepting the contrary view would also render the departmental right of appeal under Section 35B ineffective.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to the refunded claim and the refund is liable to be examined in accordance with Section 11B.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was accepted on the applicability of unjust enrichment to the refund, and the refund claim was directed to be dealt with under the governing statutory test.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly links refund claims to Section 11B, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies even to refund amounts already sanctioned and paid, and such claims remain open to appellate scrutiny.

---