2015 (11) TMI 1333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on account of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal to the extent it did not grant it refund of Rs. 93,445/- and instead upheld the credit thereof in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. When the case was called for personal hearing, no one appeared nor was any request received for adjournment. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. Appellant in its Memorandum of Appeal has essentially contended that the Asst. Commissioner of Customs initially assessed the goods provisionally and the provisional assessment was finalised vide Order-in-Original No.7/2006 dated 20.10.2006. The provisional assessment was made on 25.10.2005 and 11.07.2006 which was well before the amendment in section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd. [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC)]. 4. We have considered the facts of the case. It is not in dispute with the doctrine of unjust enrichment propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) became law of the land on the date the said judgement was pronounced. The ratio of the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of CCE Vs. Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra) wherein it was stated that the said doctrine is applicable even in case of finalisation of provisional assessment is applicable to the present case too. The appellant cited several judgements like in the cases of CC, Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri-LB)], CC Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [200....