Unjust enrichment does not apply to refund after provisional assessment finalisation; excess duty cannot be diverted to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment was treated as distinct from a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to such refunds, because the excess duty had already been quantified as refundable after re-determination. The department's reliance on Section 11B was therefore incorrect, and the refundable amount could not be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeal was found to be without merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess duty paid pursuant to finalisation of provisional assessment is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The duty had been paid under provisional assessment and, after re-determination, the assessing authority quantified excess duty and sanctioned refund. The controversy was whether the amount already found refundable could still be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the basis of unjust enrichment. The Court held that claims arising from finalisation of provisional assessment stand on a different footing from a refund claim under Section 11B. Relying on the settled position that unjust enrichment does not apply to such refunds, the Court found that the department had proceeded on an incorrect assumption that Section 11B governed the case.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund could not be denied or diverted to the Consumer Welfare Fund; the appeal was without merit.

---