https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125813 Duty paid during the pendency of a challenge to the levy may be treated as payment under protest, and Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is directory rather than mandatory for that purpose. On that basis, the refund claim was treated as not barred by limitation. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also found inapplicable where the assessee showed that the price was composite and inclusive of duty, and buyer letters indicated that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The refund was therefore allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125813 Duty paid during the pendency of a challenge to the levy may be treated as payment under protest, and Rule 233B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is directory rather than mandatory for that purpose. On that basis, the refund claim was treated as not barred by limitation. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was also found inapplicable where the assessee showed that the price was composite and inclusive of duty, and buyer letters indicated that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The refund was therefore allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125813