Provisional assessment refunds for pre-amendment periods were not subject to unjust enrichment under Section 11B.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment for a period before 25.6.1999 was held to fall outside the amended proviso to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, because the amendment operated prospectively only from that date. As a result, the Section 11B procedure, including the bar of unjust enrichment, did not apply to such earlier-period refunds, and the refund could not be rejected on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment for a period prior to 25.6.1999 was barred by unjust enrichment and the limitation procedure under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by reason of the amendment to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from finalization of provisional assessment for a period before the amendment brought in by Notification No. 49/99-CE (N.T.) dated 25.6.1999. The amended proviso to Rule 9B, which made such refunds subject to the procedure under Section 11B, operated only prospectively from 25.6.1999. Therefore, the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B was not attracted to refunds arising from provisional assessments relating to the earlier period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and could not be rejected under Section 11B on the facts of this case.

---