2006 (2) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  Revenue has filed this appeal against OIA No. 45/2005, dated 24-6-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. The respondents filed refund claims which arose on finalization of provisional assessment. The lower authorities sanctioned the refund claim but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Revenue has come against this order on the following grounds :- (i)      In the present case, the assessments were finalized by the end of May 1999 but the party filed the 5 refund claims on 2-8-1999 i.e. after the insertion of proviso to Rule 9B(5) which came into force on 25-6-1999. Hence, the ratio of the Tribunal ruling cannot be made applicable to the facts of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund amounts had to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the same was exactly ordered in the OIO. (iv)   The intention of the Apex Court judgment (on which reliance was placed on OIA) is that - (a)      the refund claims, consequent upon finalization of provisional assessments, filed prior to 25-6-1999 should not be subjected to the bar of unjust enric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to 25-6-1999 is not in dispute. Rule 9B(5) was amended by insertion of proviso only w.e.f. 25-6-1999. The Tribunal, in the case cited by the learned Consultant, has clearly held that this amendment will have only prospective effect. Revenue's reliance on para 95 of Mafatlal case-law is misplaced because that relates to a refund claim which re-agitates the issues already decided under Rule 9B. In ....