9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable. The same view was taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. (2013 (9) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD). bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.C/504/07-Mum - - - Dated:- 2-5-2014 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri C Willingdon, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K S Mishra, Addl Comm (AR) JUDGEMENT The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their refund claim has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain plants and machinery for set up of synthetic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has considered the decision of Bussa Overseas Properties (supra) and thereafter observed that even when Section 27 had provisions relating to provisional assessment prior to when Section 18 was not amended prior to 2006 to incorporate the provisions of the bar of unjust enrichment, the provisions of the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply. The bar of unjust enrichment arises after process of finalization of adjustment of duty and assessment is completed, and thereafter the Larger Bench of the tribunal arrived at the decision that in case of security deposit made provisionally and the assessment was finalized, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. The same view was taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment to refunds on finalization of provisional assessments will be applicable to the provisional assessments made after 25.06.1999 and not before that date. The addition of proviso to Rule-9 B (5) has not been made with retrospective effect. Based on the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, in the case of Commissioner of Customs VsHindalco (Supra), the doctrine of unjust enrichment will, therefore, not be attracted to the refunds pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessments for period prior to 25/06/1999 when the linking proviso under Rules 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules 2004 was not existing. The linking provision under proviso to Rule 9B( 5) was made by an amendment with effect from 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
