https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192500 Where earlier excise assessments were quashed and fresh assessment was directed, the refund arose consequentially from the reassessment process and not from an ordinary refund application. The Calcutta HC held that the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be used to curtail refund for the full period covered by the quashed assessments. It further noted that, under Rule 173-I, excess duty paid over the duty reassessed could be taken as credit without a separate refund claim. On these facts, the plea of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. en-us Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jun 2017 12:44:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192500 Where earlier excise assessments were quashed and fresh assessment was directed, the refund arose consequentially from the reassessment process and not from an ordinary refund application. The Calcutta HC held that the six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be used to curtail refund for the full period covered by the quashed assessments. It further noted that, under Rule 173-I, excess duty paid over the duty reassessed could be taken as credit without a separate refund claim. On these facts, the plea of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192500