Order This Appeal is against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short “CEGAT”) dated 29th March, 2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants have been denied refund on the ground that there would be unjust enrichment. The law regarding unjust enrichment is settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 3. The period for which refund is claimed is from 1976-1977, 1977-1978 and 1978-1979. However, it appears that there was a dispute between the Appellants and the Respondent as to how the benefit under Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16th June, 1976 was to be calculated. This dispute was ultimately decided by CEGAT in favour of the Appellants. The claim for refund had then to be worked out. Pursuant to the decision of CEGAT, the Appellant’s claims for refund were taken up for consideration in 1993. By that time Section 11-B had been amended and the doctrine of unjust enrichment had been incorporated in Section 11-B. Thus even though the Appellant’s refund claims were allowed, refund was not granted to them on the ground that they had recovered amounts from their purchasers. The amounts were directed to be credited to the Fund instituted for that purpose. 4. It is submitted that the claim for refund is based upon Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16th June, 1976. It is submitted that under this Notification the benefit could only become available at the end of the year as it had to be worked out as to what was the base clearances and the excess clearances. It was also submitted that during that period Rule 173(1) did not contemplate any refund but an automatic adjustment between the Department and the Assessee, in the account of the Assessee. It was submitted that under these circumstances the doctrine of unjust enrichment should not be applied. It was submitted that the law prevalent at that time should be applied. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 2004(164) E.L.T. 383 (SC). 5. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the law prevalent at the relevant time has to be applied. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 2004(164) E.L.T. 383 (SC). 5. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the law prevalent at the relevant time has to be applied. It is on this very principle that the refund has not been granted and question of grant of refund arose actually only after the decisions of the CEGAT. Till then there was a dispute as to the manner in which the benefit was to be worked out. By the time the claim for refund were taken up for consideration, Section 11-B had already been amended. It now provided that where the amounts had already been recovered from customers, no refund could be made. 6. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. We see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. ****************