https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350677 Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment could not be defeated by retrospectively applying the later unjust enrichment bar inserted in Rule 9-B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the competent authority had already ordered refund under the prevailing statutory framework. The Court held that duty levy, collection and refund in such circumstances had to be governed by the law applicable when the provisional assessment was finalised, not by a later amendment introduced after the refund entitlement had crystallised. The refund was therefore held payable and the refusal to refund was set aside. en-us Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350677 Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment could not be defeated by retrospectively applying the later unjust enrichment bar inserted in Rule 9-B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, where the competent authority had already ordered refund under the prevailing statutory framework. The Court held that duty levy, collection and refund in such circumstances had to be governed by the law applicable when the provisional assessment was finalised, not by a later amendment introduced after the refund entitlement had crystallised. The refund was therefore held payable and the refusal to refund was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350677