9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is similar to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. In support of his contention he relied upon the following decisions : - (i) Mafatlal Industries v. U.O.I. - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (ii) M/s. Smithkline Beecham Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (Final Order No. 852/99 -C, dated 16-9-99) (iii) Needle Industries India Ltd. v. CCE - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 286 (iv) C.C.E., Meerut v. M/s. Steel and Metal Tubes (I) Ltd. - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1201 (T) (Final Order No. 7/2000-A dated 13-1-2000) (v) C.C.E. v. M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd. - 1999 (34) RLT 668 (T) (vi) M/s. GKN Invel Transmissions Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (Final Order No. 694/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such a writ or suit is entertained and is allowed/decreed, then any refund claim arising as a consequence of the decision in such appeal or such other proceedings, as the case may be, would be governed by Section 11-B. It is also made clear that if an independent refund claim is filed after the final decision under Rule 9-B(5) re-agitating the issues already decided under Rule 9-B - assuming that such a refund claim lies - and is allowed, it would obviously be governed by Section 11B. It follows logically that position would be the same in the converse situation." 3. He also drew our attention to the finding portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) as appeared in internal page 3 of the said order is as follows :- "The facts of this present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act which is similar to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. 5. In para 3 of the Final Order No. 694/2000-A dated 30-8-2000 it was observed that with reference to Section 18, from the provision, it is clear that the authority, while finalising the assessment, should have ordered refund of the excess amount paid by the assessee. Since such a procedure was not resorted to by the adjudicating authority while finalising the assessment, applications were made. 6. In the facts and circumstances following the ratio of the aforesaid decision and in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries we are of the view that unjust enrichment is not applicable to the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
