Unjust enrichment does not bar refund from pre-25-6-1999 provisional assessment finalisation where the amendment is non-retrospective.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made before 25-6-1999 was not subject to the unjust enrichment bar under the proviso to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because that proviso was introduced only on 25-6-1999 and was not retrospective. The assessee's chartered accountant's certificate supported the claim that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the Revenue did not establish any legal infirmity in the appellate finding. The refund was therefore not defeated by unjust enrichment, and entitlement depended on finalisation of the provisional assessments before that date.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made prior to 25-6-1999 is governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and whether the assessee was entitled to refund.

Analysis: The assessments for the relevant period were provisional, and the refund claim arose only on finalisation of those assessments. The proviso to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, introducing the unjust enrichment requirement for such refunds, came into force only on 25-6-1999 and was not retrospective. Accordingly, refund consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment for the earlier period was not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The assessee had also produced a chartered accountant's certificate supporting the claim that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the Revenue failed to show any legal infirmity in the appellate finding.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not defeated by unjust enrichment, and the assessee was entitled to refund if the provisional assessments had been finalised before 25-6-1999.

---