9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal filed by the assessee is against rejection of a refund claim for an amount of duty paid under protest on goods cleared during from 21-3-1994 to 31-8-1997. That amount of duty pertained to secondary packing charges which was included, under protest, in the assessable value of the goods. The refund claim was filed in the wake of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim in question. It appears, before the lower authorities, the claimant did not resist the bar of unjust enrichment on the ground that the assessments were provisional. However, they have urged this ground through their counsel before us. Learned Counsel has submitted that, during the period of dispute, there was no requirement in law for an assessee to make formal claim for refund of duty cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to a claim for refund of duty based on the finalization of assessment. On this basis, learned Counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing refund. 3. Learned SDR submits that the plea of provisionally of assessments was not raised before. It is further submitted that, insofar as secondary packing charges are concerned, the original assessments were final and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the subject claim for refund which was admittedly consequential to finalization of provisional assessments on clearances made prior to insertion of sub-rule (5) under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, which amendment was not retrospective in operation. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Operative portio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
