Provisional assessment refunds fell outside unjust enrichment under Section 11B, and the refund could not be rejected on that basis.

Refunds arising from provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were held, for the period before insertion of the proviso to Rule 9B(5) by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.), not to attract the unjust enrichment bar in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on Mafatlal Industries and its earlier decision in Needle Industries, the Tribunal treated Section 11B and Section 11A as inapplicable while the assessment remained provisional. The later amendment was viewed as prospective legislative intervention only. The refund claim was therefore not rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment or time-bar.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a refund claim arising from provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the refund claim could be rejected as time-barred.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that, on the law as it stood before the insertion of the proviso to Rule 9B(5) by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) dated 25-6-1999, the doctrine of unjust enrichment embodied in Section 11B did not govern refunds arising from provisional assessments. The reasoning relied on the interpretation of paragraph 95 of the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries and the Tribunal's earlier decision in Needle Industries, which had already taken the view that Section 11B and Section 11A do not apply where assessments remain provisional under Rule 9B(5). The later amendment was treated as legislative intervention for the future and not as governing the period in dispute.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was not liable to rejection on the ground urged by Revenue.

---