2005 (7) TMI 381 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - provisional assessments were finalized on the basis of the Order-in-Original - filed a claim for refund - claim rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - amended provisions will have only prospective effect and would not apply to cases where the assessments have been finalized prior to the date of amendment - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund based on provisional duty payments.
2. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.
3. Appeal process involving Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal.
4. Interpretation of the amended Rule 9B and its retrospective application.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Asbestos Cement, paid duty on a provisional basis due to various abatements claimed. After finalization of assessments, a refund claim of Rs. 76,06,774 was filed for the period 20-8-1982 to 30-9-1996. Another claim of Rs. 3,18,018 was filed for the period 1-3-1997 to 1-6-1998. The Assistant Commissioner rejected both claims citing unjust enrichment.

2. Aggrieved by the rejection, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) in OIA Nos. 144/2002 and 160/2003, who upheld the rejection. The matter was then taken to the Appellate Tribunal, which remanded it back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently allowed the appeal, leading to unsuccessful appeals by the revenue before CESTAT, Bangalore.

3. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in considering finalization before the amended Rule 9B came into effect on 25-6-1999. The Tribunal, referencing a previous order and the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries case, held that the amended provisions would not apply retrospectively to finalized assessments predating the amendment. The High Court found no legal errors in the Tribunal's orders and dismissed the appeal without admission.