TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 877
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the goods under CTH 902710 along with benefit of Notification 243/78-Cus for basic duty and additional duty and Notification 23/91-Cus and Notification 70/90-CE for benefit of auxiliary duty. The benefit of these Notifications were denied to them by the original authority against which respondent filed appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the CEGAT. CEGAT vide its order no. 10-11/99B, 219 & 220/00 dated 27.01.2000 had remanded back the case to the Asst. Commissioner with certain direction and then assessment was finalised. Thereafter Bajaj Auto filed a refund claim but their claim was rejected vide Order-in-Original no. S/3-13/92 VAA ACC dated 22.08.2003 on the ground that the claimant of the refund failed to produce th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention: * Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. CCE 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) * United Spirit Ltd. vs. CC 2008 (228) ELT 360 (Tri-Mum) 4. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been amended with effect from 14.07.2006 specifically providing for application of unjust enrichment in respect of the refund arising out of finalisation. He therefore submits that their refund claim related to the period prior to 14.07.2006 and therefore the sanction of the refund claim is in order and not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. In support of his submission, he cited the following judgements:- * Oriental Exports vs. CC 2001 (127) ELT 578 (Tri-Del) * A.P. Gas Power Corp.Ltd. 2008 (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. [2004 (163) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) = 2004 (4) SCC 55], noticing the inconsistency, doubted the correctness of two decisions rendered by three-Judge Bench of this Court in, i.e., (i) Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2002 (9) SCC 416 = 2002 (143) E.L.T. 17] and (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise v. TVS Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (7) SCC 24 = 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161] as contrasted to the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) = 1997 (5) SCC 536]. The three-Judge Bench which considered the correctness of the aforesaid two decisions (of three-Judge Bench) has in Commissioner of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment was incorporated only with effect from 14.07.2006, any assessment finalised by the authorities would be governed by the provisions of Section 18 as it stood during the relevant period and the assessment finalised by the authorities subsequent to 14.07.2006 and any refund arising out of such assessment will be governed by the provisions with effect from 14.07.2006. The ld. counsel also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bussa Overseas & Properties P. Ltd. (supra) has been rendered prior to the amendment of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Inds. (supra) has taken into account the amendment to Section 18 with effect from 14.07.2006. ....