https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464260 The Bombay HC admitted substantial questions of law on whether CESTAT erred in allowing the department's appeal, whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment, and whether the classification list dated 21-11-1986 remained unapproved until the Assistant Collector's order dated 24-8-1989 so that assessments were provisional under Rule 9B read with Rules 173B and 173CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (c). en-us Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:53:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464260 The Bombay HC admitted substantial questions of law on whether CESTAT erred in allowing the department's appeal, whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment, and whether the classification list dated 21-11-1986 remained unapproved until the Assistant Collector's order dated 24-8-1989 so that assessments were provisional under Rule 9B read with Rules 173B and 173CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (c). Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464260