TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory. Disputes arose with regard to the classification and valuation of the goods, manufactured and cleared by the appellants. The goods were subjected to provisional assessments. The dispute with regard to the classification was decided in favor of the appellants by the Hon'ble Apex court on 30-03-1995, Consequently, the appellants filed refund claim on 08-09-1995. The original Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim vide Order-in-Original dated 13-12-1995, by stating that the appellants had not produced the required documents. 1.2 On appeal by the appellants, the issue was remanded for decision and also to examine the aspect of undue enrichment. Again vide Order-in-Original dated 10-03-1997, the claim was rejected as unsubstantia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Tribunal, provided the assessment stood finalized prior to 25-06-1999. 1.4 After due process, the claim for refund was decided, vide Order-in-Original No.25/2009C.Ex.RJ.dated 30-110009, by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and Central excise, Hyderabad - G Division, by sanctioning refund of Rs. 2,06,61,833/- out of the Original claim for an amount of Rs. 7,51,71,516/-. 1.5 Aggrieved by sanction of refund vide Order-in-Original dated 30-11-2009, the department filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), and assessee filed appeal against rejection of balance amount. Vide order-in-appeal dated 30-08-2010 which is impugned herein the Commissioner(AppeaIs) upheld the order of original authority and rejected both appeals filed by de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the Order dated 09-07-1999 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal agreeing in toto with the said order, it is not open to the authorities below to reject their claim on certain extraneous facts and reasoning and that too by recording the finding contrary to the admitted fact on record, and therefore prayed to set aside the impugned order to be set aside holding the same to be excessive, incorrect, and violative of the principles of judicial discipline. 3.5 Further, that authority below failed to see that the dispute on classification came to be finally settled with the passing of judgment dated 30-03-1995 by the Hon'ble Supreme court and the refund claim was also filed immediately on 08-09-1995 prior to the bringing effect of Rule 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional assessment was finalized in 1995 prior to the cut off dated i.e. 25-06-1999 he is duty bound to refund the amounts paid without application of the concept of unjust enrichment in terms of the decisions of this Hon'ble Tribunal and that of the Commissioner (Appeals) failure of which has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. 3.8 The Commissioner (Appeals) having admitted in his order that it is the responsibility of the department to finalize the provisional assessment ought not to have denied them the benefit by recording the finding that it is also the responsibility of the assessee to get the assessment finalized expeditiously by providing all the relevant documents and information considering their interest involved ough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)" is fallacious. In fact it is seen that in the said order dated 30-09-2008, the first appellate authority had in fact held as follows. "If the lower authority is of the opinion that the said decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court are not applicable to the present case, then he is bound to give a detailed reasoning, which he has failed to do. In my view, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court cited supra, if the refund claim is made pursuant to the finalisation of provisional assessment orders and prior to 25-06-1999, then the principles of unjust enrichment would not come into play. The lower authority's order is silent on the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rule 9B came into force only on 25.06.1999. On these factual background, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s order need to be reproduced. We find that the learned Commissioner(appeals) has correctly followed the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TVS Suzuki Ltd (supra) and also correctly interpreted the law, as the applicability of Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment even in the case of provisional assessment, carne into statute from 25-06-1999" 7. In the circumstances, the view taken by the lower appellate authority in the impugned order upholding original authority's decision to reject the refund for the period 4/1985 to 03/1991 for want of relevant records and for non production of proof that....