2017 (3) TMI 1596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to finalize provisional assessment shall not drag the appellant to undergo the test of unjust enrichment - the delay in finalization of provisional assessment has dragged the appellant to litigation and in absence of bar of unjust enrichment in Rule 9B(5) of CER, 44, prior to 25-6-1999, appellant need not undergo such test - appeal allowed. - E/7/2008-DB - Final Order No. 40493/2017 - Dated:- 8- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anded the matter for appropriate order. In re-adjudication on the above limited issue, refund of ₹ 1,21,65,103/- arose on 28-4-2006. Claim for refund was filed on 5-5-2006. However, the authority only allowed a refund of ₹ 71,20,080/- and balance amount of ₹ 50,45,023/- was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Appellant says that the amount so credited to welfare fund pertains .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f provisional assessment, the question of remitting part of the refund to Consumer Welfare Fund would not have arisen. The same appellant was before the Apex Court on same issue as per the decision reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). It has been held therein that delay of the Department to finalize provisional assessment shall not drag the appellant to undergo the test of unjust enrichment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X