Unjust enrichment does not govern pre-25-6-1999 provisional assessment refunds; the refund remains payable to the assessee.

For refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made before 25-6-1999, the later proviso linking Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to operate prospectively only. The doctrine of unjust enrichment therefore did not apply to such pre-amendment refunds, even if the assessment was finalised later. As a result, the refund could not be diverted to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the assessee was entitled to receive it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25-6-1999, when the proviso linking Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was introduced.

Analysis: The refund claim related to a period when the proviso to Rule 9B(5), making the procedure under Section 11B applicable to refunds arising on finalisation of provisional assessment, was not yet in force. The later amendment was held to be prospective and not retrospective. The legal position applied was that, for provisional assessments made before 25-6-1999, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not govern the consequential refund, even if finalisation occurred later. On that basis, the refund could not be denied by crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund in question, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

---