2009 (10) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent (assessee) by the lower appellate authority. The learned SDR has reiterated the grounds of this appeal. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. 2. The respondent had claimed refund of duty of Rs. 6,03,695/-. The original authority rejected the claim after holding that the claimant had not proved that the incidence of duty had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cuments, one of which is the order of finalisation of provisional assessment, dated 28-3-1996. The refund claim in question was filed in the month of February, 1995. Obviously, it was filed prior to finalisation of the provisional assessment (Apparently, it was filed by the assessee upon having found excess payment of duty owing to a calculation mistake). It is settled law that neither any demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h assessment. In this view of the matter, I hold that the respondent was entitled, upon finalisation of provisional assessment, to refund of the excess duty paid by them, unaffected by the doctrine of unjust enrichment embodied in Section 11B of the Act. The conclusion reached by the lower appellate authority has, therefore, to be sustained though the reason cited by it cannot be accepted. 5. In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X