TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal are as follows. Appellant-company was the manufacturer and supplier of 'Front Wheel Drive Axle Assembly' for maruti cars. For this purpose, they entered into collaboration with G.K.N. Automotive AG, Germany. A number of components manufactured by the collaborators were imported. While making the assessments on the bills of entry, the value shown in the invoice was loaded by 5%. In other words, goods covered by 156 bills of entry spread over a period from 1989 to 1994 were provisionally assessed by loading the invoice value by 5%. Special Valuation Branch, by its order No. 15/94 dated 28-9-94, ordered to accept the value given in the invoice for making the assessment. Consequently, assessments on 156 bills of entry were finalised witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d falls short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed] , the importer or the exporter of the goods shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be;". From this 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 for return of the excess amount. That application was only a reminder to the assessing authority of the provisions contained in Section 18(2)(a). 4. Claim of refund in cases where provisional assessments are made final was dealt with by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under Rule 9B(5) re-agitating the issues already decided under Rule 9B - 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". Following the above law, this Tribunal in the cases of Indo Flogates Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar [1997 (20) RLT 308(T)], Needle Indus (India) Ltd. v. CCE [1998 (101) E.L.T. 286 (T) = 1998 (26) RLT 307 (T)], Alcatel Modi Network System v. CCE [2000 (117) E.L.T. 522 (T)], CCE v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [1999 (34) RLT 668] and Final Order No. A/440/2000-NB (DB) dated 25-4-2000 took the view that the principles relating to unjust enrichment will not apply to cases where provisional assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
