Provisional assessment adjustment allows excess duty to be set off against short payment, without a blanket unjust enrichment bar.

On finalisation of provisional assessment, excess duty paid may be adjusted against any short payment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the rule expressly requires duty provisionally assessed to be reconciled with the final assessment. The mechanism permits either payment of deficiency or refund of excess, as the case may be, and the bar of unjust enrichment was not accepted to defeat that statutory adjustment. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the order sustaining set-off of excess and short duty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on finalisation of provisional assessment, excess duty paid could be adjusted against short payment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the bar of unjust enrichment could be invoked to deny such adjustment/refund.

Analysis: Rule 9B(5) expressly provides that duty provisionally assessed is to be adjusted against duty finally assessed and that, if the provisional assessment falls short of or is in excess of the final assessment, the assessee is to pay the deficiency or be entitled to refund, as the case may be. On that basis, the adjustment of excess payment against short payment in provisional assessments is legally permissible. The plea that unjust enrichment prevents such adjustment was not accepted in the context of the finalisation mechanism under the rule.

Conclusion: The adjustment of excess duty against short duty was upheld and the challenge by the Revenue failed; the plea to sanction refund to the assessee instead of credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Finalisation of provisional assessment permits set-off of excess and short payment under the governing rule, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: On finalisation of provisional assessment, excess duty and short duty are to be adjusted under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and such adjustment is not barred by a blanket objection of unjust enrichment.

---