9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... encashment of bank guarantee before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court in its order in Writ Petition No.1967 of 1999 had directed the Revenue to issue show-cause notice before finalizing the assessment. It also gave revenue opportunity to withdraw the earlier order issued by the Revenue. Consequently a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to finalise the assessment. The assessment was finalised by the original adjudicating authority by allowing all the deductions claimed by the appellant. The order further allowed the appellant to take credit of the refund in their Cenvat account. The order also examined the issue of unjust enrichment while granting the refund. The said order of adjudicating authority was challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of deduction. He also relies on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against order-in-original, the Revenue has not challenged the admissibility of deduction as is apparent from the grounds of application where it is specifically stated that the deductions are not in dispute. In these circumstances, it is not open to Revenue to challenge the admissibility of deductions before the Tribunal. The learned AR has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC). I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. (supra) has considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sments 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 provision under proviso to Rule 9B(5) was made by an amendment with effect from 25-6-1999 and will be applicable only w.e.f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
