2004 (9) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri A.K. Saxena, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. - The issue in the present case is whether or not the principles of unjust enrichment can apply when the assessments are still provisional under Rule 9B and have not yet been finalised. 2.1 Since 1980, the Appellants had been purchasing duty-paid jumbo rolls of polyester film, which had been lacq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ey also filed Classification Lists under protest 1988 onwards. These Classification Lists were provisionally approved from time to time under Rule 9B. The Appellants duly executed B-13 bonds with security of 25 per cent in the shape of a bank guarantee from 29-10-1988, the Appellants paid duty under protest and the assessments were all kept provisional. 2.5 By an order dated 30-4-1991, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o show cause why the refund claim should not be rejected on the ground that the amount of duty had been passed on to the buyers through various gate passes at the time of clearance and that therefore the refundable amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2.10 The Appellants filed before the Assistant Commissioner an affidavit of one Mr. Ashok Sharma explaining that the exci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d provisional. No order has been passed, finalizing the assessments after the order of the Collector was passed. The show cause notice dated 22-8-1995 has been issued only for rejecting the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment and not for finalising the assessments. 3.2 It was incumbent upon the Assistant Commissioner to have first finalised the assessments and the classification list....