9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o refund arising out of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 9.1.1997. The issue in this case is relating to deduction of expenses relating to carriage and freight in the assessable value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order relating to carriage and freight has observed as under:- To decide that question evidence on question, of fact would be necessary. It is therefore, appropriate that we remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner (Central Excise), Worli. Bombay to determine the question of liability of excise duty, after taking into consideration the claimed deduction under the aforesaid head on the basis of the evidence to be produced before him. The Assistant Commissioner shall decide the matter in the light of the obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that even after the passing of the interim order by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, though they were filing the price list but they were not paying duty on the carriage and freight element. Further, the respondent filed appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and it is on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they paid duty corresponding to the carriage and freight element. It was further submitted that this duty was not paid along with every gate pass but was paid on lump sum basis as determined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector at that point of time and now they are claiming refund on the same basis. There ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd freight element and on cardboard box packaging and interest on distributors advances. They did not agree and filed appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that they paid the duty on these three components along with interest. The said duty was paid based upon the computation done by the Assistant Collector at that point of time and now they are claiming the refund on the basis of computation. Under the circumstances, we do not see what other documents are required to be submitted by the respondent to prove their claim. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this count. 9. The second issue is relating to doctrine of unjust enrichment. It is not disputed that the goods were cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unjust enrichment to refunds on finalization of provisional assessments will be applicable to the provisional assessments made after 25-6-1999 and not before that date. The addition of proviso to Rule 9B(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, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco (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 25-6-1999 when the linking proviso under Rules 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not existing. The linking provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
