Prospective amendment to provisional assessment refund rules barred unjust enrichment, leaving the refund outside the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made before the 25-06-1999 amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as outside the amended proviso's reach, because the amendment operated prospectively. The date of filing the refund claim was not decisive where the refund flowed directly from finalisation of provisional assessment. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Mafatlal principle were held inapplicable on the facts, as the claim did not reopen matters already concluded under provisional assessment. Unjust enrichment therefore did not apply, the amount was not required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made before the amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is hit by unjust enrichment when the refund claim was filed after the amendment and the amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The assessments were finalized before 25-06-1999, while the proviso to Rule 9B(5) was inserted only with effect from that date. The amendment was held to operate prospectively, so the date of filing of the refund claim was not decisive where the refund arose directly from finalisation of provisional assessment. The reasoning based on Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the principle in Mafatlal was inapplicable because the claim did not re-agitate issues already concluded under provisional assessment. The Board Circular was also followed to support this position.

Conclusion: Unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund was not required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---