https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3767 Duty paid under protest on rejected and returned inputs, and expressly treated as a pre-deposit, retained the character of a deposit where the substantive dispute had already been decided in the assessee's favour. On those facts, the amount was refundable, and denial on the ground of unjust enrichment failed because the later payment could not be presumed to have been passed on merely from its accounting treatment. The ruling also notes that deposits made pending dispute become refundable on success without requiring a fresh refund claim in the ordinary duty sense. en-us Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3767 Duty paid under protest on rejected and returned inputs, and expressly treated as a pre-deposit, retained the character of a deposit where the substantive dispute had already been decided in the assessee's favour. On those facts, the amount was refundable, and denial on the ground of unjust enrichment failed because the later payment could not be presumed to have been passed on merely from its accounting treatment. The ruling also notes that deposits made pending dispute become refundable on success without requiring a fresh refund claim in the ordinary duty sense. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3767