https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374063 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order on unjust enrichment in provisional assessments under Rule 7 of the CER 2002. The decision clarified that unjust enrichment does not apply in provisional assessments, following established precedents. It highlighted that excess duty need not always undergo the unjust enrichment test before refund, citing previous rulings and distinguishing the case from a Supreme Court decision on normal refunds. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances and legal interpretations in determining unjust enrichment in excise duty cases. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:03:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374063 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order on unjust enrichment in provisional assessments under Rule 7 of the CER 2002. The decision clarified that unjust enrichment does not apply in provisional assessments, following established precedents. It highlighted that excess duty need not always undergo the unjust enrichment test before refund, citing previous rulings and distinguishing the case from a Supreme Court decision on normal refunds. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances and legal interpretations in determining unjust enrichment in excise duty cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374063