Provisional assessment refunds and unjust enrichment: refund was admissible because excess duty arose from finalisation, not appellate relief.

Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment where the original authority, after remand, re-determined the assessable value and found duty had been paid in excess. The refund in such circumstances flows from the final assessment process, not from appellate relief, so the limitation applied to refunds stemming from appellate or remand proceedings does not govern. The refund was therefore admissible and consequential relief was available to the assessees.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising on finalisation of provisional assessments is barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund was not granted as a result of appellate relief. The original authority, after remand, re-determined the assessable value, re-assessed the goods, and found duty to have been paid in excess. The refund thus flowed from finalisation of the provisional assessment, and not from any appellate order. The reference to refunds arising from appellate or remand proceedings therefore did not govern the case.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and was admissible to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellants were entitled to consequential refund relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments are not barred by unjust enrichment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules.

---