2016 (1) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 1,01,37,551.00 for the period December 1997 to September 2000. It is contended by the learned Advocate that the refund claim is arising out of the finalisation of the provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. By Notification No.45/99-CE(NT), dt.25.06.1999, a proviso was inserted in Rule 9B of the said Rules 1944, as under:- "Provided that, if an assessee is entitled to a refund, such refund shall not be made to him except in accordance with the procedure established under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act." 2. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST., Vadodara-II Vs M/s Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd - 2013-TIOL-1367-CESTAT-AHM-LB held that the principle of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccordingly the procedure regarding application of unjust enrichment to refunds on finalization of provisional assessments will be applicable to the provisional assessments made after 25-6-1999 and not before that date. The addition of proviso to Rule 9B(5) has not been made with retrospective effect. Based on the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics Ltd. (supra) and Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco (supra), the doctrine of unjust enrichment will, therefore, not be attracted to the refunds pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessments for period prior to 25-6-1999 when the linking proviso under Rules 9B(5) of Central Excise R....