TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty paid by him has to be refunded or short payment has to be paid by him to the Government. The factor of satisfying that unjust enrichment does not arise on the finalization of the provisional assessment was brought into Rule 9B in the year 1999. It is undisputed that the refund claims were filed by the appellant in 1991. The law is now settled that the provisions of Rule 9B before the amendment of bringing the question of unjust enrichment cannot be applied for rejecting the refund claims arising out of provisional assessment. On this ground, we hold that the Revenue's appeal is devoid of merits and is rejected. Reversal of Modvat credit - inputs used in manufacture as intermediate products were exempted from payment of duty - Held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lower authorities. All the procedures required for the provisional assessment were complied by the appellant. The excisability of the product was settled by the lower authorities in favour of the appellant-assessee who immediately filed refund claims of the amounts which were paid by them under protest . The Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund claims, but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant-assessee has not been able to pass the hurdle of unjust enrichment. On an appeal, the first appellate authority, out of the refund of approximately ₹ 91.99 lakhs, allowed the refund claim of ₹ 75 lakhs and ordered for reversal of modvat credit of ₹ 16.11 lakhs. This was done so by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le of unjust enrichment as hurdle of unjust enrichment was brought into Rule 9B in 1999, while they have filed the refund claims in 1991. He would submit that the law is now squarely settled on this issue. 5. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that as regards the Revenue's appeal against the sanctioning of refund claim of ₹ 75 lakhs, this has no merits inasmuch that there is no dispute that the clearances affected by the appellant-assessee had been under provisional assessment as per Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under the said Rule, an assessee can seek provisional assessment and on finalization, either excess duty paid by him has to be refunded or short payment has to be pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
