9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Bombay High Court in CEAT Ltd case [ 2018 (5) TMI 605 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] where it was held that The proviso to Rule 9B(5) would be made applicable only with effect from 25.06.1999 and therefore the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be made applicable to the refunds arising out of finalization of the provisional assessments pertaining to the period prior to 25.06.1999 even if the assessments are finalized after 25.06.1999. It is not in dispute that the provisional assessment was directed in the year 1995 and relevant documents for finalisation of claim have been submitted in the year 1996. The department finalised the assessment only in the year 2008 - the principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to the refund fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad claimed refund of the excess duty paid amounting to ₹ 1,14,51,537/- on 08.12.2008. The adjudicating Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but directed the same to be credited to the consumer welfare fund as per amended Section 11B(2) read with Section 12C of Central Excise Act 1944. Aggrieved by the said order the they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and observed that the respondents are entitled for refund of the duty. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal has submitted that since finalisation of provisional assessment was consequent to the issue of Notification No. 30/2001 CE(NT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional prior to the amendment. Thus, even though the finalisation of assessment in their case was completed in the year 2008, therefore the principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to their case. In support he has referred to the following judgements. 1) CCE Mumbai III Vs CEAT Ltd [2018-TIOL-976-HC-MUM-CX] 2) CCE Bengalure-I Vs Indian Telephone Industries Ltd [2018-TIOL-1279-HC-KAR-CX] 3) CCE Chennai Vs TVS Suzuki Ltd [2003 (156)ELT 161(SC)] 4) 4) CCE ST Vadodara-II Vs Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd [2014(303)ELT 231 (Tri-LB Ahmedabad)] 5) CCE Hyderabad II Vs VST Industries Ltd [2018-TIOL-3000-CESTAT-Hyd)] 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue involved in the present appeal for consideration is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle of unjust enrichment cannot be made applicable to the refunds arising out of finalization of the provisional assessments pertaining to the period prior to 25.06.1999 even if the assessments are finalized after 25.06.1999. It is not in dispute that the provisional assessment was directed in the year 1995 and relevant documents for finalisation of claim have been submitted in the year 1996. The department finalised the assessment only in the year 2008. In these circumstances applying the above ratio of the Bombay High Court, we are of the view that principles of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to the refund filed consequent to finalisation of provisional assessment initiated in the year 1995. In the result, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
