https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96158 Duty paid under protest pending finalisation of classification was treated as provisional, so the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not bar the refund claim. The rejection on limitation was therefore unsustainable. The refund also could not be refused on unjust enrichment where that ground was not proposed in the show cause notice and the assumption of duty being passed on was unsupported by evidence. The buyer's entitlement under Section 11D(4) had to be examined independently, and the unjust enrichment bar under Section 11B did not operate in the same manner. The lower orders were set aside and consequential refund relief followed. en-us Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:35:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96158 Duty paid under protest pending finalisation of classification was treated as provisional, so the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not bar the refund claim. The rejection on limitation was therefore unsustainable. The refund also could not be refused on unjust enrichment where that ground was not proposed in the show cause notice and the assumption of duty being passed on was unsupported by evidence. The buyer's entitlement under Section 11D(4) had to be examined independently, and the unjust enrichment bar under Section 11B did not operate in the same manner. The lower orders were set aside and consequential refund relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96158