Refund after final assessment and unjust enrichment under Central Excise law referred for Larger Bench consideration.

A refund claim arising after final assessment was treated as potentially governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, because Mafatlal Industries indicated that refunds after a final order fall within that framework. The Court noted that later three-Judge Bench decisions had proceeded on Mafatlal Industries without fully considering the relevant paragraph on post-final-assessment refunds. As the correctness of the contrary view raised an important question of law and the factual position on whether the assessments were provisional or final had not been finally determined, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim arising after final assessment is governed by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the question required reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The order noted that earlier three-Judge Bench decisions had proceeded on the basis of Mafatlal Industries and had not considered the full scope of the relevant paragraph dealing with refunds after final assessment. The Court observed that the larger bench decision in Mafatlal Industries indicated that once a final order is passed, a refund claim would be governed by Section 11B. Since the correctness of the contrary view in the later three-Judge Bench decisions involved an important question of law, and the factual dispute as to whether the assessments were provisional or final was also not being determined at that stage, the matter was considered fit for examination by a Larger Bench.

Conclusion: The question was referred to a Larger Bench for decision.

Final Conclusion: No final pronouncement on the refund entitlement was made in this order, and the legal issue was left for determination by a Larger Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the correctness of conflicting bench decisions on a substantial question of law is in doubt, and the factual foundation is not finally decided, reference to a Larger Bench is warranted.

---