Unjust enrichment cannot defeat refund claims concluded under the unamended excise law; amended Section 11B was not applied retrospectively.

A refund claim filed and disposed of under the unamended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act could not be rejected on the basis of unjust enrichment, because the provision then in force contained no such condition. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions and the Karnataka High Court view that unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine available to courts, not a ground departmental authorities could invoke under the Act for such concluded claims. The 1991 amendment was not applied retrospectively to the already completed refund proceedings, and its broader effect was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim filed and disposed of before the 1991 amendment to Section 11B could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under the unamended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal followed its prior decisions that departmental authorities could not invoke unjust enrichment to reject a refund claim when the section then in force contained no such condition. It also noted the view of the Karnataka High Court that unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine available to courts and not to authorities under the Act. The amended provision was not treated as governing the already concluded claim, and the question of its wider effect was left open for an appropriate case.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---