Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 449 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - Applicability of principles of unjust enrichment - duty was paid provisionally prior to amendment to Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 brought into statute with effect from 25.06.1999 - HELD THAT:- In this case, the duty was paid under provisional assessment during December 1998 to May 1999. At the relevant time, there was no provisions of unjust-enrichment in Rule 9B (5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same was inserted from 25.06.1999. Therefore, the provisions of unjust-enrichment of Rule 9B (5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Hence the refund claim could not have been rejected on the ground of unjust-enrichment. This Tribunal in the case SHREE BALAJI DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST- SURAT [2018 (6) TMI 888 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], while dealing with identical matters has held that The duty paid is pertaining to the period December 1998. The same was paid on 05.06.1999. The assessment was provisional during the relevant period. There was no provision of unjust enrichment in the case of provisional assessment under Rule 9B. This express provision brought into the statute w.e.f 25.06.1999 by inserting the Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|