https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362028 Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable to provisional assessments made before 25.06.1999, so the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and succeeded. The article also notes that, where an earlier appellate order had remanded the matter only to examine refund eligibility, the original authority could not reopen and confirm differential duty on design and engineering charges after that issue had attained finality. On both points, the departmental challenge failed and the refund order was sustained. en-us Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:24:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362028 Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held inapplicable to provisional assessments made before 25.06.1999, so the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and succeeded. The article also notes that, where an earlier appellate order had remanded the matter only to examine refund eligibility, the original authority could not reopen and confirm differential duty on design and engineering charges after that issue had attained finality. On both points, the departmental challenge failed and the refund order was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362028