Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Refund Claim Rejected: Unjust Enrichment Principles Applied Under Amended Excise Act, Favoring Revenue.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II Versus STANDARD DRUM & BARREL MFG. CO.</h3> The court concluded that the refund claim from the finalization of the provisional assessment on June 8, 1999, was subject to the principles of unjust ... Refund claim - excise duty paid on goods cleared on provisional assessment - Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the refund claim of the assessee could not be rejected by applying the principle of unjust enrichment, on the ground, that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the refunds arising on the finalization of the provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on June 8, 1999 ? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the assessee has filed the refund application on November 1, 1999. Since amendment to Rule 9B(5) had come into force with effect from June 25, 1999, the said refund application made on November 1, 1999 had to be disposed of as per the amended Rule 9B(5) by applying the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Excise Act. The contention that the refund claimed in the application dated November 1, 1999 pertains to the refund accrued to the assessee prior to June 25, 1999 and, therefore, the amended Rule 9B(5) has no application cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in view of the amendment to Section 11B with effect from August 1, 1998, all refunds arising on finalisation of the provisional assessments made under the Excises Rules are governed by the procedure prescribed u/s 11B of the Excise Act and the amendment to Rule 9B(5) on June 25,1999 merely clarifies the legal position existing from August 1, 1998. Thus, refund accrued to the assessee after August 1, 1998 and moreover claim for refund was admittedly made after the amendment to Rule 9B(5) and , therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we hold that, the Assessing Officer was justified in invoking the principles of unjust enrichment to the refund arising on finalisation of the provisional assessment on June 8, 1999 and that the refund claimed by the assessee by application dated November 1, 1999 was governed by the provisions of Section 11B of the Excise Act. In the present case, admittedly the assessee has recovered from its customers the duty paid on goods cleared on provisional assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the refund claim of the assessee. Moreover, having consistently argued before the authorities below that irrespective of the assessee collecting excise duty from the customers, the revenue cannot deny refund arising on finalisation of the provisional assessment, it is not open to the assessee, at this belated stage in this appeal to make out an altogether different case that the duty collected has been refunded to the customers. Thus, we hold that the assessing officer was justified in holding that the refund arising on finalisation of the provisional assessment on June 8, 1999 was governed by the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Excise Act as amended by Act 21 of 1998 and the Tribunal erred in holding to the contrary. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The reframed question of law, is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment to refunds arising from the finalization of provisional assessments.2. Interpretation of Rule 9B(5) and its amendment.3. The effect of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on refund claims.4. Retrospective vs. prospective application of legal amendments.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Principles of Unjust Enrichment:The core question was whether the refund arising on the finalization of provisional assessment could be denied by applying the principles of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court analyzed the statutory amendments and precedents, particularly focusing on the amendment to Rule 9B(5) and the insertion of clause (eb) to Section 11B. It was concluded that refunds arising from the finalization of provisional assessments after August 1, 1998, must comply with the procedure under Section 11B, which includes the principles of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the refund claim must establish that the burden of duty was not passed on to third parties.2. Interpretation of Rule 9B(5) and its Amendment:Initially, Rule 9B(5) allowed for refunds without applying the principles of unjust enrichment. However, the rule was amended on June 25, 1999, to include a proviso that refunds would be subject to Section 11B procedures. The court held that the amendment was clarificatory, reinforcing the requirement to follow Section 11B for refunds post-August 1, 1998. The court rejected the argument that the amendment to Rule 9B(5) should apply only from June 25, 1999, emphasizing that the legislative intent was to align Rule 9B with Section 11B.3. The Effect of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:Section 11B was amended to include clause (eb), specifying that refunds from provisional assessments must be claimed within the stipulated time and must not have been passed on to third parties. The court noted that this amendment aimed to ensure that all refunds, including those from provisional assessments, adhere to the principles of unjust enrichment. The court emphasized that the legislative amendment to Section 11B was intended to bring uniformity and prevent undue enrichment by ensuring that refunds are granted only when the claimant has not passed on the duty burden.4. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Legal Amendments:The court examined whether the amendments to Rule 9B(5) and Section 11B should apply retrospectively or prospectively. It was concluded that the amendments to Section 11B from August 1, 1998, were applicable to all refunds arising from provisional assessments finalized after this date. The court clarified that the amendment to Rule 9B(5) on June 25, 1999, was merely a reiteration of the existing statutory provisions and did not alter the applicability of Section 11B from August 1, 1998. Hence, the refund claim filed on November 1, 1999, was subject to the amended Section 11B and the principles of unjust enrichment.Conclusion:The court held that the refund arising from the finalization of the provisional assessment on June 8, 1999, was governed by the principles of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Excise Act, as amended by Act 21 of 1998. The court found that the assessee had passed on the duty burden to its customers and thus, the refund claim was rightly rejected by the assessing officer. The appellate authorities' reliance on pre-amendment judicial precedents was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue, and the reframed question of law was answered in the negative, confirming the applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment to the refund claim.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found