https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338606 The doctrine of unjust enrichment was treated as inapplicable to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments for periods before 25-6-1999, because the linking proviso to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inserted only by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) and was held not to operate retrospectively. Refund claims tied to pre-amendment provisional assessments were therefore outside the amended linking provision. The discussion also notes that the matter was regarded as the first valid finalisation order after withdrawal of an earlier order, so the cited Supreme Court observation on appeals against final orders did not control the refund claim. en-us Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338606 The doctrine of unjust enrichment was treated as inapplicable to refunds arising from finalisation of provisional assessments for periods before 25-6-1999, because the linking proviso to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inserted only by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.) and was held not to operate retrospectively. Refund claims tied to pre-amendment provisional assessments were therefore outside the amended linking provision. The discussion also notes that the matter was regarded as the first valid finalisation order after withdrawal of an earlier order, so the cited Supreme Court observation on appeals against final orders did not control the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338606