2014 (4) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri G S Dave (Astt.Mgr) For the Respondent : Shri Raju, Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: M V Ravindran; All these appeals are being disposed of by a common order as these appeals raise same question of law and facts and are inter-connected. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, the fact that needs consideration by the Bench is whether the appellant M/s Panasonic Battery India Co. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resentative, on the other hand, raises a preliminary point as to that when the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, the two questions were referred and the Larger Bench answered only one question. He would draw our attention to the referral Benchs order. It is his submission the matter may be put up for reconsideration before the Larger Bench. On merit, it is his submission that the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epots, the goods were cleared on commercial invoices. It is his submission that proper reconciliation was given to the lower authorities and the lower authorities on noticing the reconciliation, had sanctioned refund but credited to consumer welfare fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. 6. At the outset, we would like to put on record that the preliminary point raised by the ld.Departmental ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a No.8 that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be attracted to the refunds pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.06.1999 when the linking proviso under Rule 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules was not in existence. Since the Larger Bench has already ruled in favour of the assessee, we find that the impugned order to the extent it is contrary to the l....