ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal of the Revenue is whether a claim of the respondents for refund of duty consequent upon finalization of provisional assessments made for the period 1.4.1999 to 24.6.1999 is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. According to the appellant, such a claim for refund is governed by Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended by Notification No. 49/99-CE (NT) dated 25.6.1999. A proviso was added to Rule 9B by the above Notification to the effect that, if an assessee was entitled to refund upon finalization of provisional assessment, such refund should not be allowed except in accordance with the procedure established under Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This would mean that the limitation and unjust enrichment provisions of Section 11B would be applicable to a refund claim arising out of finalization of provisional assessment. This provision, however, had only prospective operation, i.e., with effect from 25.6.1999. The provision was not applicable to a refund claim arising out of finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.6.1999. Hence, after hearing learned SDR, I dismiss this appeal, wherein the appellant wants the respondent’s refund claim to be rejected as barred by unjust enrichment. The refund claim arose out of finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.6.1999 and the same is not affected by anything contained in Section 11B inasmuch as the amendment to Rule 9B has only prospective effect from 25.6.1999.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)