Unjust enrichment does not bar provisional-assessment refunds, and amended Rule 9B(5) applies only prospectively.

Refund claims arising from finalisation of provisional assessments under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are treated as claims on duty adjustment and are not governed by the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amendment to Rule 9B(5) by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) does not apply retrospectively to clearances made before its effective date, because the governing event is the assessment of goods cleared during the relevant period. On that basis, the unamended rule applied to the disputed refunds and rejection of refund was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims arising from finalisation of provisional assessments under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) Whether the amendment to Rule 9B(5) by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 25-6-99 applies to refund claims arising from clearances made prior to that date.

Issue (i): Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims arising from finalisation of provisional assessments under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claims arose only after finalisation of provisional assessments. The finalisation was made under Rule 9B, and the resulting refund claims were therefore claims for refund arising on adjustment of duty under Rule 9B(5). The settled position recognised in the Supreme Court decisions relied upon was that such claims stand on a different footing and are not governed by the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the refund claims.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Rule 9B(5) by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 25-6-99 applies to refund claims arising from clearances made prior to that date.

Analysis: The amending notification did not provide for retrospective operation. The relevant event for Rule 9B(5) is the assessment of the excisable goods cleared during the relevant period, not the later date of show cause notice or adjudication. Since the clearances in question related to a period prior to the amendment, the unamended rule governed both the provisional assessment and its finalisation.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 9B(5) does not apply retrospectively to the disputed refunds.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims, being consequential to finalisation of provisional assessments for a prior period, were not hit by unjust enrichment, and the impugned rejection of refund was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund claims arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) are outside the bar of unjust enrichment, and an amendment to that rule does not apply retrospectively unless clearly so provided.

---