2005 (2) TMI 662

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent. [Order]. Heard both side. 2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, pleaded that the prices of PIJF Cables supplied to DOT/MTNL were provisionally approved and the same were finalised in March, 1999 and the Superintendent of Central Excise determined that the amount of Rs. 1,12,025/- has been paid extra. The appellants accordingly filed refund claim in September, 1999. The refund cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Court in the case of TVS Suzuki Ltd. (supra), therefore, supports the view which we have taken herein above that refund consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment did not attract the bar of unjust enrichment . 3. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR pleaded that in this case, the refund application was filed in September, 1999. Therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable. H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s observed that merely because the departmental authorities took a long time to process the application for refund, the right of the appellant does not get defeated by the subsequent amendment made in Rule 9B(5). In the present case, since the department itself took a long time in finalisation of the provisional assessment but the duty paid extra was determined much before amendment. Therefore, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X