9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 & E/68/2003 - 1045-1046/2008 - Dated:- 24-9-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri K.S. Ramesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In the first of these appeals, the challenge is against the decision of the lower authorities to credit an amount of duty of Rs. 1,00,261/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The other appeal is against a similar decision relating to an amount of duty of Rs. 23,961/-. Certain provisional assessments of the fiscal 1999-2000 were finalised by the Assistant Commissioner as per order dated 31-3-2001, whereupon excess duty paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25-6-1999, it is submitted that the authorities did not grant an effective opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment. We have heard the learned SDR also; who has relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Standard Drum and Barrels Mfg. Co. [2006 (199) E.L.T. 590 (Bom.)] in support of his argument that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the entire claim of refund inasmuch as such claim has arisen out of finalisation of provisional assessments for periods subsequent to 1-8-1998, the date on which Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was amended to make the date of finalisation of provisional assessment the relevant date for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. The contention raised by the party that as the refund had accrued to them from finalisation of provisional assessment for a period prior to 25 th June, 1999 the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the refund claim was rejected and it was held that the amendment to Rule 9B(5) (which was made with effect from 25-6-1999) merely clarified the legal position existing from 1-8-1998 (the date on which Section 11B of the Act was amended). The Hon'ble High Court rendered this ruling after considering inter alia the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. TVS Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
