Unjust enrichment bar in refund claims does not apply to pre-amendment provisional assessments under administered pricing.

Refund claims arising from provisional assessments for a period before the statutory insertion of the unjust enrichment provisions were not barred merely because finalisation occurred later. The Tribunal treated the later finalisation as irrelevant to the pre-amendment character of the assessments and held that the unjust enrichment bar did not apply. It also noted that the product price was fixed under an administered pricing regime, supporting the conclusion that duty burden could not be regarded as passed on in the ordinary commercial sense. The refund claims were therefore maintainable in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims arising from provisional assessments made before the relevant amendment when the assessments were finalized later, and whether such bar can apply where the product price was fixed under an administered pricing regime.

Analysis: The refund claims arose from provisional assessments made prior to the statutory insertion of the relevant unjust enrichment provisions. The Tribunal followed the principle that, for refunds arising out of finalization of provisional assessment relating to a period before the amendment, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply merely because finalization occurred later. The Tribunal also relied on the fact that the product price was controlled by the Government under the administered pricing mechanism, which supported the conclusion that the burden of duty could not be treated as having been passed on in the ordinary commercial sense.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable, and the refund claims were held to be maintainable in favour of the assessee.

---