https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97461 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. en-us Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:35:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97461 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97461