Unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds from provisional assessments made before 25.06.1999, as the amendment operates prospectively.

Refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments made before 25.06.1999 are not subject to unjust enrichment merely because finalisation occurred later. The amendment incorporating Section 11B(2) into the Rule 9B refund procedure operates prospectively, so it applies only to provisional assessments made after that date. Accordingly, where the provisional assessment was initiated before the amendment, the refund remains payable to the assessee and the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment made in 1995 but finalised in 2008.

Analysis: The applicable legal framework was Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the amendment introducing the procedure under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 into provisional-assessment refunds. The decisive consideration was whether the amendment operated retrospectively. It was held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to provisional assessments made prior to 25.06.1999 merely because finalisation occurred later, since the amendment to Rule 9B(5) is not retrospective and applies only to provisional assessments made after that date.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the refund claim, which arose from a provisional assessment initiated before the amendment. The refund was therefore payable to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted to refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment made before 25.06.1999, because the amendment applying Section 11B(2) to Rule 9B refunds operates prospectively only.

---