https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43087 Duty paid under protest, followed by an appellate finding that the activity was non-excisable, gave rise to a substantive refund right that could not be defeated by limitation provisions or procedural defects in protest compliance. The refund claims were therefore maintainable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar relief because there was no material showing that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund rejection was consequently unsustainable and refund of the duty paid was due. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43087 Duty paid under protest, followed by an appellate finding that the activity was non-excisable, gave rise to a substantive refund right that could not be defeated by limitation provisions or procedural defects in protest compliance. The refund claims were therefore maintainable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar relief because there was no material showing that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The refund rejection was consequently unsustainable and refund of the duty paid was due. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 29 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43087