Unjust enrichment does not bar refund from pre-June 1999 provisional assessment finalisation under central excise law.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment for the period before the June 1999 amendment to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The legal position applied was that, for such pre-amendment provisional assessments, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not extend to deny refund merely because duty incidence may have been passed on. The refund was therefore allowable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising on finalisation of provisional assessment for the period prior to June 1999 was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from finalisation of provisional assessments relating to the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. The legal position applied was that, before the amendment to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with effect from June 1999, the bar of unjust enrichment did not extend to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessment. Since the period in dispute was prior to that amendment, the refund could not be denied on the ground that the duty incidence had been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to it.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the refund failed, and the order granting refund was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment for a period prior to the June 1999 amendment to Rule 9B is not subject to the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B.

---