Provisional excise assessment and refund: unjust enrichment did not bar claims where duty was paid before the Rule change.

Duty paid under provisional assessment and supported by a bond was treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the price list had been provisionally approved by the Assistant Commissioner. The refund claims were filed before the 1999 amendment that added an unjust enrichment requirement at the finalisation stage, so that amendment did not govern the claims. The Tribunal's finding that the assessments were provisional was a factual finding, and no perversity was shown. On those facts, unjust enrichment did not bar refund, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's duty payment during 1988 to 1990 was made under provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether refund on finalization was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that the price list was provisionally approved by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 9B and the assessee was required to execute a bond. The duty was paid in the course of provisional assessment, and the refund claims were filed in 1991, before the 1999 amendment to Rule 9B that introduced a requirement of satisfaction regarding unjust enrichment at the stage of finalization. The Tribunal's finding that the assessments were provisional was a finding of fact and no perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The assessment was provisional, unjust enrichment did not arise on the facts of the case, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---