Provisional assessment refund claims remain subject to unjust enrichment when duty has been passed on to buyers.

An independent refund claim filed after finalisation of provisional assessment under the compounded levy scheme is governed by section 11B, so the claimant cannot avoid the statutory bar of unjust enrichment. Where the assessee admits that duty was included in processing charges and not shown separately in invoices, the factual burden-shifting to buyers is established. In that situation, unjust enrichment applies and the refund is not permissible. The text distinguishes a refund arising on assessment finalisation from a later standalone refund application, and confirms that passing on the duty incidence defeats the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund arising after finalisation of provisional assessment under the compounded levy scheme could be claimed without attracting section 11B and the bar of unjust enrichment. (ii) Whether the refund was barred because the duty incidence had been passed on to buyers by including it in the processing charges.

Issue (i): Whether a refund arising after finalisation of provisional assessment under the compounded levy scheme could be claimed without attracting section 11B and the bar of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund was not ordered at the stage of finalisation of assessment, and the assessee thereafter filed an independent refund application. The legal position drawn from section 11B and rule 9B is that making of refund under provisional assessment is distinct from a subsequent refund claim, and an independent claim after final assessment falls within section 11B. The principle that refund arising on finalisation under rule 9B is not automatically governed by section 11B did not assist the assessee in the present factual setting.

Conclusion: The subsequent refund claim attracted section 11B and could not escape the bar of unjust enrichment.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund was barred because the duty incidence had been passed on to buyers by including it in the processing charges.

Analysis: The assessee itself admitted that after opting for the scheme, the duty element was included in the processing charges and was not shown separately in the invoices. That factual admission, coupled with the concurrent findings below, established that the duty burden had been shifted to the buyers. In such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied irrespective of the assessee's reliance on invoice entries.

Conclusion: The refund was barred because the duty incidence had been passed on to buyers.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was legally sustained, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An independent refund claim filed after finalisation of provisional assessment is governed by section 11B, and refund cannot be granted where the claimant has passed on the duty burden, because the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies even apart from the statute.

---