Provisional assessment refunds and unjust enrichment: pre-25.06.1999 claims were not hit by the later Section 11B-linked amendment.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment for the period before 25.06.1999, because the proviso linking such refunds to Section 11B(2) procedure was inserted only by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) and was held to operate prospectively. The doctrine of unjust enrichment therefore did not apply to refunds relatable to the pre-amendment period, and rejection of refund for that period was set aside. The claim for the later period was remanded for consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment for the period prior to 25.06.1999.

Analysis: The refund claimed arose from finalisation of provisional assessment. The proviso linking such refunds to the procedure under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was inserted by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) dated 25.06.1999. On the basis of the Larger Bench view, the amendment was held to apply only prospectively, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to refunds relatable to the period before 25.06.1999.

Conclusion: Refund for the period prior to 25.06.1999 could not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment and was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of refund was set aside to the extent it related to the pre-25.06.1999 period, while the claim for the later period was sent back for consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The amendment making Section 11B procedure applicable to refunds from provisional assessment operates prospectively, and unjust enrichment does not apply to such refunds for periods prior to its commencement.

---