2015 (10) TMI 2136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore-I Division. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore-I Division vide his order finalized the provisional assessment under Rule 9(B) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period of July 2000 to March 2001. Further vide his order, Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise makes a mention that the assessee becomes entitled to the differential duty of refund of Rs. 10,95,429/-. 2. The respondent in the case is M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Mysore. The subject goods in the matter are pneumatic tyres, tubes and flaps (Chapter 40). In the facts, the appellant mentions that assessee was clearing excisable goods under stock transfer to various depots and C&F agents situated all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioned in the Order-in-Appeal No.88/2004. The respondent further argues that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessment cases, when they are finalized and when any refund is due to the assessee. The respondent refers to the Board's Circular No.744/60/2003-CX dt. 11/09/2003 mentioning that the Department's appeal on the said issue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003(156) ELT 161 (SC)]. 6. The respondent has also referred to the following case laws in their support:- a. Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2008(89) RLT (CESTAT-Ban.] b. Vinir Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore [2004(168) ELT 34 (Tri. Bang.)] c. Needle Industries....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut of 14 depots. When the Department has not given any clear evidence to counter the statement of the assessee that sales were made to only 10 depots out of 14 depots, the Department's argument that sales of all the depots could have been considered cannot be examined further and will be termed as put up without any clear basis. 9. The Department's argument that doctrine of unjust enrichment would have been considered during finalization vide Order-in-Original dt. 26/02/2002 cannot be accepted when Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CCE, Chennai Vs. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003(156) ELT 161 (SC)] was accepted by the Board when the Department's appeal had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court in thi....