9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. The only issue in this case is whether the principles of unjust enrichment will be applicable for the refund, which has arisen consequent to the finalisation of provisional assessment. 3. Shri G. Shivadass ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants pleaded that in this case the appellants were having no sale at the factory gate for it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner s Order dated 26-3-1997, the Superintendent of Central Excise finalized the assessment of RT-12 returns for the period from January 1984 to December 1984 and has duly recorded excise duty paid in excess on irrecoverable taxes which had not been claimed in the price list initially. The appellants further submitted that the amount claimed as refund has not been collected from the buyers or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rable taxes. Since the provisional assessments were finalized on finalisation of the price list and accordingly RT-12s were also assessed monthwise, Superintendent instead of giving them refund on RT-12s asked the appellants to file the refund claim. They accordingly claimed the refund claim of Rs. 2,17,617.54 on 26-8-1997 from 1-1-1984 to December 1984. Show Cause Notice was issued to them propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographic India Ltd., 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein it was observed that in Para 104 of Mafatlal s case it has been held that in cases where duty is paid under Rule 9B and refund arises on adjustment under Rule 9B(5) then such refund will not be governed by Section 11B. Since in this case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
