Refund from provisional assessments escapes unjust enrichment where entitlement is already final and only quantification remains.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessments was treated as not attracting the doctrine of unjust enrichment for the period concerned, because the entitlement to refund had already been accepted in principle and only quantification remained. The text notes that the amended Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, effective from 25.06.1999, did not displace the settled position applicable to the relevant period. It further records that the Tribunal's factual findings were not shown to be perverse and that the revenue's objections did not undermine the earlier finality attaching to the refund entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising from the finalization of provisional assessments for the relevant period was liable to be tested on the touchstone of unjust enrichment and governed by the amended Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim had already been accepted in principle in earlier proceedings, and the controversy that survived was confined to quantification. The Court noted that the Tribunal had applied the settled position that refund arising from finalization of provisional assessments for the period in question was not hit by unjust enrichment merely because Rule 9B(5) was amended with effect from 25.06.1999. The Court further held that the factual findings recorded by the Tribunal were not shown to be perverse, and that the revenue's grounds did not displace the earlier finality attaching to the entitlement to refund.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and it was held that the respondent remained entitled to refund without application of unjust enrichment under the amended Rule 9B(5) for the period concerned.

---