https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124244 Refund arising from provisional assessments finalised before insertion of the proviso to Rule 9B(5) could not be denied by applying unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amendment was held prospective and, on the cited Supreme Court principle, could not retrospectively withdraw a refund entitlement that had already crystallised under the earlier legal position. As the provisional assessment period pre-dated the amendment, the later Section 11B compliance requirement did not govern the pending refund claim. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund, and the Revenue challenge failed. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:16:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124244 Refund arising from provisional assessments finalised before insertion of the proviso to Rule 9B(5) could not be denied by applying unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amendment was held prospective and, on the cited Supreme Court principle, could not retrospectively withdraw a refund entitlement that had already crystallised under the earlier legal position. As the provisional assessment period pre-dated the amendment, the later Section 11B compliance requirement did not govern the pending refund claim. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund, and the Revenue challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124244