Amended refund bar and unjust enrichment applied to excess excise duty on assessment finalisation under Rule 173-I.

The amended Section 11B applied to excess central excise duty arising on finalisation of RT-12 returns, and the claim was treated as a refund in substance even though adjustment in the personal ledger account was sought under Rule 173-I. Because Section 11B(2) permits refund only where the incidence of duty has not been passed on, and Section 11B(3) gives that restriction overriding effect, the claim was barred by unjust enrichment. The authority cited by the assessee was distinguished because it did not address Rule 173-I under the amended provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Section 11B, including the doctrine of unjust enrichment, applied to duty excess arising on finalisation of assessment and adjustable under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The excess duty arose on finalisation of RT-12 returns and was treated as refundable in substance, even though the assessee sought adjustment in the personal ledger account instead of filing a formal refund application. The amended Section 11B(2) permitted refund only where the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and Section 11B(3) gave the provision overriding effect notwithstanding any contrary judgment, order, or rule. The claim therefore fell within the ambit of the refund restriction and the unjust enrichment bar. The authority relied upon by the appellant was distinguished because it did not consider the position under Rule 173-I in the context of the amended provision.

Conclusion: The amended Section 11B applied and the appellant was not entitled to relief.

---