2009 (8) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore us for the second time. The appellant herein had manufactured kraft paper and cleared the same on payment of duty for packing paper and paper products manufactured in its own factory during 7-3-81 to 17-1-92. Later on they claimed refund of the duty paid on the basis that clearances of kraft paper captively consumed were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 217/86, dated 1-3-1986. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... above finding of the Assistant Commissioner. 2. We have heard both sides. The appellants have relied on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE Chennai v. TVS Suzuki Ltd., 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) in support of their claim that the impugned claim need not pass the test of unjust enrichment. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the subject assessments continue to be provisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xcise rules 1944 came into force. As it is submitted that the assessments remain provisional even today, we remand the matter to the Original Authority to finalise the assessment and decide the issue in terms of the above judgment. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given an opportunity of effective hearing. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. As the issue pertains to the period 1987-1992 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X