https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54895 For provisional assessments relating to periods before the 14-5-1999 amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the unjust enrichment bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not govern finalisation of assessment or the consequential refund. The Tribunal treated the amendment as prospective only and relied on TVS Suzuki and Allied Photographics to support that Section 11B could not be retrospectively applied to earlier provisional assessments. It also noted that Hyderabad Industries was confined to its facts and was not a general rule barring refund in every case. The refund on finalisation was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:13:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54895 For provisional assessments relating to periods before the 14-5-1999 amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the unjust enrichment bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not govern finalisation of assessment or the consequential refund. The Tribunal treated the amendment as prospective only and relied on TVS Suzuki and Allied Photographics to support that Section 11B could not be retrospectively applied to earlier provisional assessments. It also noted that Hyderabad Industries was confined to its facts and was not a general rule barring refund in every case. The refund on finalisation was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54895