https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213529 A payment made under protest during investigation, which was never appropriated as duty after the demand was dropped, was treated as a deposit and not as duty, so Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply and the refund was not barred on limitation. The Tribunal also accepted evidence that the incidence had not been passed on, including reversal of credit and treatment of the amount as recoverable from the Government, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not attracted. Refund was therefore held maintainable on both grounds. en-us Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213529 A payment made under protest during investigation, which was never appropriated as duty after the demand was dropped, was treated as a deposit and not as duty, so Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply and the refund was not barred on limitation. The Tribunal also accepted evidence that the incidence had not been passed on, including reversal of credit and treatment of the amount as recoverable from the Government, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not attracted. Refund was therefore held maintainable on both grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213529