TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instance of the Revenue. Assessee paid duty on a provisional basis and executed a bond undertaking to pay differential duty on finalisation of assessment. When the assessing authority made final assessment, within the period allowed by law, assessee claimed refund. That claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as per order-in-original No. 11/98, dated 3-2-1998. The assessee took up the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessment. That assessment was subsequently finalized. Consequent on the finalization of the assessment, amount was found due to the manufacturer. He claimed refund. Such a claim for refund is protected from the law of unjust enrichment as has been held by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). Refund based on finalization of a provisional assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner gave his authorization as is seen from his order dated 24-2-1999. In the first paragraph of that order, it is stated : "I observe that it [the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)] is not proper and legal on the grounds specified in annexure 'A' enclosed herewith." On the basis of the grounds specified in annexure 'A' which was enclosed, the Commissioner finds illegality and impropriety i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are clear in our mind that the Commissioner has not applied his mind on the issue of legality or propriety of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) before according sanction or authorization to prefer the appeal. 5. Order passed by the Appellate Commissioner is strictly in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to earlier. We find no illegality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
