2018 (10) TMI 22 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – Refund claim – unjust enrichment – Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal correct in holding that payment of duty by the assessee during the period 1988 to 1990 was provisional under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore, no question of unjust enrichment can arise?
–
Held that:- No fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the assessment during the period 1988 to 1990 were provisional under Rule 9B of the Rules. Further, no question of unjust enrichment would arise, as the refund claims were filed in 1991 that is much before the amendment to Rule 9B of the Rules in the year 1999 which requires t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ). 2. Shri. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges only the following question of law for our consideration: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal correct in holding that payment of duty by the assessee during the period 1988 to 1990 was provisional under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 ( Rules ) and therefore, no question of unjust enrichment can arise? 3. The Respondent is engaged in manufacturing of chopped strand mat (final product). At an intermediate stage in the manufacture of final product, the Respondent obtained glass filament. According to the Respondent, glass filament was not excisable. Therefore, t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
. 5. Shri. Dwivedi, the learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that there was no provisional assessment as Respondent had paid the duty under protest. Therefore, the refund on finalization of assessment should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. On the other hand, Shri. Oswal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent invites our attention to the memorandum of Appeal, wherein in paragraph 3.4 the Appellant-Revenue itself states that the price list filed by the Respondent was provisionally approved by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 9B of the Rules and the Respondent was directed to execute B-13 bond with sufficient surety. A copy of the letter communicating the above fact to the Respondent is also annexed to the memorandum of A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =