https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4306 Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act was not barred by unjust enrichment because the evidence showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers, and the Department did not dispute that factual position on merits. The Court also held that duty for the disputed period was paid under protest: contemporaneous correspondence and the exemption record showed repeated objections to withdrawal of exemption and the hardship caused, so strict compliance with Rule 233B was not required where protest was otherwise apparent. The six-month limitation under Section 11B therefore did not apply, and the refund claim was allowed. en-us Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4306 Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act was not barred by unjust enrichment because the evidence showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers, and the Department did not dispute that factual position on merits. The Court also held that duty for the disputed period was paid under protest: contemporaneous correspondence and the exemption record showed repeated objections to withdrawal of exemption and the hardship caused, so strict compliance with Rule 233B was not required where protest was otherwise apparent. The six-month limitation under Section 11B therefore did not apply, and the refund claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4306