9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, no question of unjust enrichment can arise? Held that:- 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 amendment to Rule 9B of the Rules in the year 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 of the case and in law was the Tribunal correct in holding that payment of duty by the assessee during the period 1988 to 1990 was provisional under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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 Provisional under Rule 9B of the Rules. Thus, the excise duty paid by them was to be refunded. 5. Shri. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that there was no provisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olding 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 amendment to Rule 9B of the Rules in the year 1999 which requires the officers of the Revenue before granting refund, to be satisfied that there is no unjust enrichment on finali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
