TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred the question of applicability of unjust enrichment to the refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment. We find that the referral order was specifically referring to only this issue wherein there were contrary views as to applicability of unjust enrichment which were introduced in Rule 9B(V) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 w.e.f. 25.06.1999. Though the referral Bench, in their or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dh, Adv. and Shri G S Dave (Astt.Mgr) For the Respondent : Shri Raju, Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M V Ravindran; All these appeals are being disposed of by a common order as these appeals raise same question of law and facts and are inter-connected. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the fact that needs consideration by the Bench is whether the appellant M/s Panasonic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld.Departmental Representative, on the other hand, raises a preliminary point as to that when the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, the two questions were referred and the Larger Bench answered only one question. He would draw our attention to the referral Benchs order. It is his submission the matter may be put up for reconsideration before the Larger Bench. On merit, it is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depots. From the depots, the goods were cleared on commercial invoices. It is his submission that proper reconciliation was given to the lower authorities and the lower authorities on noticing the reconciliation, had sanctioned refund but credited to consumer welfare fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. 6. At the outset, we would like to put on record that the preliminary point raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early opined in Para No.8 that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be attracted to the refunds pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.06.1999 when the linking proviso under Rule 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules was not in existence. Since the Larger Bench has already ruled in favour of the assessee, we find that the impugned order to the extent it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
