https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379987 The amended Rule 9B(5) introducing the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply retrospectively to refund claims arising from provisional assessments made before the amendment. The Court followed its earlier view that the 1999 amendment was intended to address the prior difficulty in refund matters, but it did not govern pre-amendment transactions merely because finalisation occurred later. Since the assessee's entitlement to refund had already attained finality and only quantification remained, the refund claim was maintainable and the amended bar could not be invoked on those facts. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 May 2019 07:17:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379987 The amended Rule 9B(5) introducing the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply retrospectively to refund claims arising from provisional assessments made before the amendment. The Court followed its earlier view that the 1999 amendment was intended to address the prior difficulty in refund matters, but it did not govern pre-amendment transactions merely because finalisation occurred later. Since the assessee's entitlement to refund had already attained finality and only quantification remained, the refund claim was maintainable and the amended bar could not be invoked on those facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379987