https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115191 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants. It found that the refund claim rejection was unjust as the duty deposited related to finalization of provisional assessments, not falling under Section 11A. The Tribunal held that unjust enrichment did not apply to refunds from provisional assessments, citing the Mahavir Aluminium case. It deemed the Consumer Welfare Fund credit unnecessary and Section 11D inapplicable due to duty not being represented in the invoice. The Revenue was directed to return pre-deposited amounts with interest and duty as per Supreme Court directives and Board Circulars. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 15:35:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115191 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants. It found that the refund claim rejection was unjust as the duty deposited related to finalization of provisional assessments, not falling under Section 11A. The Tribunal held that unjust enrichment did not apply to refunds from provisional assessments, citing the Mahavir Aluminium case. It deemed the Consumer Welfare Fund credit unnecessary and Section 11D inapplicable due to duty not being represented in the invoice. The Revenue was directed to return pre-deposited amounts with interest and duty as per Supreme Court directives and Board Circulars. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115191