Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund arising on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules is governed by Section 11B(2) and Section 11B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the bar of unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The refund claimed by the assessee arose directly from finalisation of provisional assessment. The settled position, as applied by the Tribunal, is that refunds or recoveries consequent upon adjustment under Rule 9B(5) stand in a different sphere from refund claims made under Section 11B. The binding Supreme Court authorities relied upon establish that such refund, being a consequence of final assessment, is not controlled by the procedural restrictions of Section 11B and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to that category of refund. The overriding language of Section 11B(3) did not alter that position for refunds arising from finalisation under Rule 9B(5).
Conclusion: The refund consequential to finalisation of provisional assessment was not governed by Section 11B(2) or Section 11B(3), and the assessee was entitled to refund without the importation of the unjust enrichment bar.
Ratio Decidendi: Refunds arising on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) are governed by the special assessment regime and not by the refund restrictions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.