Provisional assessment refund not subject to unjust enrichment when excess duty is returned after final assessment.

Refund arising from excess duty paid on finalization of provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment. The Court distinguished a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from a refund consequential to finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and treated the latter as outside the unjust enrichment bar. On that basis, the refund claim was held maintainable and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to a refund claim arising from excess duty paid on finalization of provisional assessment.

Analysis: The refund arose because duty had been paid provisionally and was found to be in excess on final assessment. In such a situation, the governing principle is that refund is not barred by unjust enrichment merely because the claim is one for return of duty paid earlier. The Court followed the settled distinction between a refund governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was rightly allowed. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund that accrues on finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---