9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessment cases, when they are finalized and when any refund is due to the assessee. The respondent refers to the Board’s Circular No.744/60/2003-CX dt. 11/09/2003 mentioning that the Department’s appeal on the said issue was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (8) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - Decided against Revenue. - E/602/2004-DB - Final Order No. 21936 / 2015 - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent : Shri Lakshmi Narayanan, Advocate ORDER Per : Ashok K. Arya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the original adjudicating authority finalized the assessments based on the clearances made in respect of only 10 depots, though he should have considered the clearances made for all the depots by the assessee while finalizing the assessment. 4. The Department argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in upholding the method adopted by the original adjudicating authority in finalization of the provisional assessment. The Department further argues that for the refunds arising out of the finalization of provisional assessment, the test of unjust enrichment has to be applied. 5. The respondent viz. M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. (now M/s. J.K. Tyres Industries Ltd.) in letter Ref. No.C.Ex./09/PA2000-01 dt. 20/12/2012 addressed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, there were 20 depots at the relevant period and not 14 depots as was mentioned in the Order-in-Appeal No.88/2004. Deputy Commissioner (Review) also says that, there was no evidence to confirm that there were sales only in respect of 10 depots during that period. He also confirmed in the above said letter dated 09/01/2013 that assessee had filed a refund claim of ₹ 12,95,429/- and an amount of ₹ 12,94,821/- was sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No.86/2002 and appropriated towards adjudication levies pending. 8. The Department s submissions do mention that there were 20 depots, but they have not given any confirmatory evidence regarding the stock transfer or the sale in respect of all 20 or 14 depots, when Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
