https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84723 Refund was held inadmissible where the assessee accepted the duty demand without protest, paid it by debit to the PLA, and had not declared the relevant final product in the prescribed declaration at the material time. The refund claim could therefore not be sustained, and the rejection of refund was restored. Separately, the amount earlier debited through RG-23A Part II, having been made good through PLA payment, could be restored to the Modvat credit account under the scheme, and the unjust enrichment objection under Section 11B did not arise because no refund was found admissible. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:05:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84723 Refund was held inadmissible where the assessee accepted the duty demand without protest, paid it by debit to the PLA, and had not declared the relevant final product in the prescribed declaration at the material time. The refund claim could therefore not be sustained, and the rejection of refund was restored. Separately, the amount earlier debited through RG-23A Part II, having been made good through PLA payment, could be restored to the Modvat credit account under the scheme, and the unjust enrichment objection under Section 11B did not arise because no refund was found admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84723