https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45849 A payment made during pending excise adjudication after clearance of goods, in response to a disputed enhancement of assessable value, was treated as a refundable deposit rather than duty. The procedure applicable to duty paid under protest did not govern such a post-clearance deposit, because it was not paid at the point of removal. The Court further held that unjust enrichment could not be invoked without evidence that the amount had been recovered from consumers as duty. Refund with interest was therefore available to the assessee. en-us Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2025 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45849 A payment made during pending excise adjudication after clearance of goods, in response to a disputed enhancement of assessable value, was treated as a refundable deposit rather than duty. The procedure applicable to duty paid under protest did not govern such a post-clearance deposit, because it was not paid at the point of removal. The Court further held that unjust enrichment could not be invoked without evidence that the amount had been recovered from consumers as duty. Refund with interest was therefore available to the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45849