https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84408 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, remanding the matter for the Assistant Collector to decide the refund claims in accordance with the law. The Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector's discretion should be limited to ensuring that the duty paid was correct and that the claim was timely, rejecting the Collector's argument for arbitrary rejection based on personal beliefs. The judgment emphasized the prevention of unjust enrichment post-amendment in 1991 and the retrospective operation of the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. en-us Tue, 23 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:40:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84408 The Tribunal allowed the appeals, remanding the matter for the Assistant Collector to decide the refund claims in accordance with the law. The Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector's discretion should be limited to ensuring that the duty paid was correct and that the claim was timely, rejecting the Collector's argument for arbitrary rejection based on personal beliefs. The judgment emphasized the prevention of unjust enrichment post-amendment in 1991 and the retrospective operation of the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84408