https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794500 Refund limitation turned on whether the first application dated 02.06.2011 had been received by the Department; because receipt or non-receipt was not clearly established, factual verification was required. The appellate authority went beyond the original rejection, which had rested only on limitation, by treating verification of payment as irrelevant. The refund claim was also subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection order was therefore not sustained and the matter was remanded to the Refund Sanctioning Authority for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity and examining evidence of double payment and unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794500 Refund limitation turned on whether the first application dated 02.06.2011 had been received by the Department; because receipt or non-receipt was not clearly established, factual verification was required. The appellate authority went beyond the original rejection, which had rested only on limitation, by treating verification of payment as irrelevant. The refund claim was also subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection order was therefore not sustained and the matter was remanded to the Refund Sanctioning Authority for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity and examining evidence of double payment and unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794500