9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.06.1999 cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of rejection of refund claim of ₹ 1,01,37,561.00. We allow the refund claim for the period prior to 25.06.1999 - Matter remanded back - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/13546/2013-DB - Order No. A/11527/2015 - Dated:- 19-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri P. Paranjape, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: P.K. Das After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the learned Advocate for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 from the provision of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Even under the amendment made by Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-1999 only the procedure established under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has been made applicable to the refunds arising out of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that after 25.06.1999, they are eligible for refund in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Cus Vs Alembic Ltd - 2010 (262) ELT 112 (Guj). On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate fairly submits that the Adjudicating authority had not given any finding on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. He further submits that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal came after passing of the impugned Adjudication order. 4. We find that the refund claim was rejected on the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition of unjust enrichment. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd (supra), unjust enrichment will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
