9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1077X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong 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. - In view of the decision of the Larger Bench [2013 (9) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. - Decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No. E/993/05-Mum - ORDER NO.A/2064/15/EB - Dated:- 8-7-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atlal Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India reported is {1997(89) ELT 247.SC}. Consequent to the said order, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Worli, Mumbai passed order dated 28.5.2003. Against the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, after going through the said order, found the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is incorrect and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Against the said order, the Revenue has come in appeal. 3. There are two issues raised in the grounds of appeal. The first issue is that the amount has been sanctioned without the necessary documents being submitted by the respondent to show that the amount refunded on account of the cost element of carriage and freight w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were provisional.The said assessments have been finalized only after the said order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment would be applicable to the cases which pertain to the period prior to amendment in Section 11B, but processed after the said amendment had come up before the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. reported in 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri.-LB). He further submitted that in para 8 of the said judgment, the Larger Bench has held that the amended provision will not be applicable to the provisional assessments pertaining to the year before the amendment. Under the circumstances, doctrine of unjust enrichm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai-II v. Allied Photographics Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], Hon ble High Court in para 18 of the order in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that there is distinction between making of a refund and claiming of a refund and that the amendment carried out in Section 18(5) on 13-7-2006 cannot be held to be clarificatory and retrospective in nature. In para 21 of the judgment in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra) it has been held that department is bound by law to make the refund without any claim being required to be filed for the period up to 12-7-2006. Entitlement to refund and finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is independent fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
