Retrospective unjust-enrichment bar rejected for provisional assessment refund paid before the amendment took effect.

Refund of duty paid under provisional assessment for the period before 25.06.1999 could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The relevant amendment inserting the unjust-enrichment bar came into force only on 25.06.1999, and a statutory restriction on refund cannot operate retrospectively absent express legislative intent. As the assessment and payment predated the amendment, the refund claim was not barred, and the order against the assessee was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from duty paid under provisional assessment during the period prior to 25.06.1999 was barred by unjust enrichment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The duty in question was paid under provisional assessment during December 1998 to May 1999, when Rule 9B(5) did not yet contain an unjust-enrichment bar. The provision inserting unjust enrichment into provisional assessment cases came into force only on 25.06.1999. The applicable legal principle is that a statutory restriction affecting refund cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of express legislative intent. Since the assessment and payment predated the amendment, the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The unjust-enrichment bar under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not applicable to the refund claim, and the decision against the assessee was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the refund claim could not be denied by applying the amended unjust-enrichment provision to a provisional assessment made before its commencement.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment introducing unjust enrichment for provisional assessments does not operate retrospectively to defeat a refund claim for duty paid before the amendment came into force.

---