Unjust enrichment not applied to refunds from provisional assessments for periods before the Rule 9B(5) amendment.

The proviso inserted into Rule 9B(5) linking refunds on finalisation of provisional assessments to Section 11B(2) applied only from 25.06.1999 and was not retrospective. Finalisation of provisional assessment and the resulting refund entitlement were distinct from a refund claim governed by Section 11B, so the amended unjust enrichment requirement could not be used to deny refunds for provisional assessment periods before 25.06.1999 merely because finalisation occurred later.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments for periods prior to 25.06.1999 when the proviso to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inserted only with effect from that date.

Analysis: The amendment introducing the proviso to Rule 9B(5) linked refunds on finalisation of provisional assessments to the procedure under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amendment was brought into force only from 25.06.1999 and was not expressed to operate retrospectively. The legal position drawn from the authorities considered was that finalisation of provisional assessment and the resulting entitlement to refund are distinct from a refund claim governed by Section 11B, and the additional statutory linkage for applying the refund procedure, including unjust enrichment, arose only from the amendment date. Accordingly, for provisional assessments relating to the period before 25.06.1999, the amended proviso could not be applied to deny refund on the ground of unjust enrichment merely because finalisation occurred later.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments pertaining to the period prior to 25.06.1999, even if the assessments were finalised after that date, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---