9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (2) TMI 662 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Application of principles of unjust enrichment in a refund claim filed before the amendment in Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules.
Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding a refund claim for excess duty paid on PIJF Cables supplied to DOT/MTNL. The appellant's claim was rejected by lower authorities citing a lack of proof that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyers. The appellant argued that the provisional assessment was finalized before the amendment in Rule 9B, and hence, unjust enrichment principles should not apply. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., which supported the view that refund after finalization of provisional assessment did not attract unjust enrichment. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the refund application was filed after the amendment, making unjust enrichment principles applicable. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, held that since the provisional assessment was finalized before the amendment in Rule 9B, and the excess duty was determined to be refunded to the appellant before the amendment, the appellant was entitled to the refund. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd., where it was observed that delay in processing the refund application by departmental authorities did not defeat the appellant's right to refund. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the amendment in Rule 9B(5) would not be applicable in this case, and the appellant was entitled to the refund with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the refund claim was valid as the excess duty was determined to be refunded before the amendment in Rule 9B, and the delay in processing the refund application did not impact the appellant's right to claim the refund.
|
