Provisional assessment refunds and unjust enrichment under Rule 9B remain governed by the provisional-assessment regime.

Finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was examined in relation to whether clearances from all depots had to be included and whether unjust enrichment could defeat the resulting refund. The assessment records and assessee's correspondence supported inclusion only of the depots actually covered by the finalisation exercise, and the Revenue produced no clear evidence requiring the remaining depots to be taken into account. On refund, the Supreme Court's position on provisional assessment governed the matter, and the later amendment to Rule 9B(5) did not alter entitlement on these facts; unjust enrichment was treated as inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the finalization of provisional assessment was vitiated for not considering clearances from all depots, and (ii) whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the finalization of provisional assessment was vitiated for not considering clearances from all depots.

Analysis: The assessment records and the assessee's correspondence supported the position that clearances during the relevant period were made only to the depots actually covered by the finalization exercise. The Revenue did not produce clear evidence to establish that sales or stock transfers from the remaining depots were required to be included for the purpose of finalizing the provisional assessment. In the absence of such rebuttal material, the objection that all depots ought to have been taken into account was not substantiated.

Conclusion: The objection was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: Refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment was governed by the legal position recognized by the Supreme Court in relation to such assessments, and the later amendment to Rule 9B(5) did not defeat the assessee's refund entitlement on the facts. The authority treated the Supreme Court's view as controlling and held that unjust enrichment did not bar the refund in a case of this nature.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The Department's challenge to the refund consequent upon finalization of provisional assessment failed, and the assessee's position was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund arising from finalization of provisional assessment is to be determined under the governing provisional-assessment regime, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where the law so recognized excludes its operation.

---