Res judicata bars reopening of refund claims on unjust enrichment after a final tribunal decision, restoring the refund claims.

Refund claims for a period before insertion of the unjust enrichment provision in Section 11B could not be denied on that ground once the Tribunal had finally decided the issue between the same parties. A later show-cause notice raising the same solitary objection was barred by res judicata, and the orders passed pursuant to it could not stand. The rejection orders were therefore set aside and the refund claims restored with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims, earlier held not to be hit by unjust enrichment, could be rejected again on the same ground in subsequent proceedings; and whether the later show-cause notice was barred by res judicata.

Analysis: The refund claims related to a period prior to the insertion of the unjust enrichment provision in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal had already decided, by a final order that attained finality, that the refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Department did not challenge that order, yet issued another notice raising the same solitary objection. Since the earlier decision conclusively settled the issue between the parties, the subsequent notice and the orders passed pursuant to it could not survive.

Conclusion: The later show-cause notice was barred by res judicata and was illegal; the rejection orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund claims were restored with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An issue finally decided by a competent tribunal and allowed to attain finality cannot be reopened between the same parties on the same ground in subsequent proceedings, particularly where the statutory basis for the objection was not applicable to the relevant period.

---