2007 (5) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 29-3-2005 41/05 dated 29-3-2005 36/2005 dated 29-3-2005 Refund claimed   Rs. 30,27,490/- Rs.47,67,157/- Rs.7,46,865/- 2. All these appeals deal with refunds arising on account of provisional assessment. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that they had been filed after the amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 25-6-1999 and consequent to the refund claim would be subject to the provisions of unjust enrichment. 3. Shri G. Shiva Dass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. Heard both sides. In respect of the Appeal Nos. E/387/2005, E/576/2005 and E/577/2005, the period involved i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- 2003 (154) E.L.T. 480 (affirmed by SC as reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. A180) (v)     CCE v. STI Products Ltd. - Final Order No.1093/2004 dated 18-6-2004. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we allow completely Appeals'e/576/2005 and E/577/2005, however, E/579/2005 is allowed partially by excluding the refund amount pertaining to the period beyond the amendment. 4.2 In respect of Appeal No.E/387/2005, the appellants contended that the Tribunal in the Final Order No. 2823/99 dated 4-11-1999 remanded the matter for re-computation holding that the interest on sundry debtors was deductible in the light of Apex Court decision in MRF's case 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). In the de novo proceedings, the Asstt. Co....