9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. ORDER : 1. This Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenges the order dated 18th August 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. Shri. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges only the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filament was not excisable goods and therefore, no duty was payable. This resulted in the Respondent being entitled to refund. 4. The Appellant sought to deny the refund to the Respondent on the ground that the goods were not provisionally assessed and in fact, the duty had been paid under protest. The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the clearance effected by the Respondent was Provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also annexed to the memorandum of Appeal at Exh.D being letter dated 29th August 1988. 7. In the above view, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the assessment during the period 1988 to 1990 were provisional under Rule 9B of the Rules. Further, no question of unjust enrichment would arise, as the refund claims were filed in 1991 that is much before the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
