https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368056 Duty paid under provisional assessment and supported by a bond was treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the price list had been provisionally approved by the Assistant Commissioner. The refund claims were filed before the 1999 amendment that added an unjust enrichment requirement at the finalisation stage, so that amendment did not govern the claims. The Tribunal's finding that the assessments were provisional was a factual finding, and no perversity was shown. On those facts, unjust enrichment did not bar refund, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2018 08:41:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368056 Duty paid under provisional assessment and supported by a bond was treated as provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the price list had been provisionally approved by the Assistant Commissioner. The refund claims were filed before the 1999 amendment that added an unjust enrichment requirement at the finalisation stage, so that amendment did not govern the claims. The Tribunal's finding that the assessments were provisional was a factual finding, and no perversity was shown. On those facts, unjust enrichment did not bar refund, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368056