Refund on finalisation of provisional assessment held within limitation and not defeated by unjust enrichment.

A refund arising from the finalisation of a provisional assessment was treated as timely when the valuation dispute and duty determination were concluded only after the Tribunal's final order. Earlier correspondence asserting entitlement also supported the claim being within limitation. On unjust enrichment, the doctrine was held inapplicable because the refund related to provisional assessment and final adjustment of duty, the relevant period preceded the amendment introducing the specific bar in Rule 9B, and the facts showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The refund was therefore held to be within limitation and not barred by unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and whether it was defeated by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund arose only after the valuation dispute and consequential duty determination finally concluded with the Tribunal's order. The claim filed thereafter was therefore treated as timely. Even on the earlier correspondence, the assessee had already asserted entitlement to the amount in question, which also supported the claim being within time. On unjust enrichment, the refund was held to arise out of provisional assessment and final adjustment of duty. The provision for unjust enrichment was considered inapplicable to the relevant period, which was prior to the amendment introducing the specific bar in Rule 9B, and the facts also indicated that the incidence of duty had not been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be within limitation and not hit by unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment, where the duty dispute is concluded only upon final appellate determination, is not barred by limitation on being claimed thereafter, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the relevant pre-amendment period.

---