TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid on certain post manufacturing expenses(PME) that matter was travelled up to the Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 25-11-1983 held that revised statement of deduction to be filed by the appellant and directed the Asstt. Commissioner to finalize assessment for the period 1972 to 1983. On 28-12-1983 appellant filed revised statement of deduction as per the direction of Supreme Court. During the period 4-1-1994 to 23-3-1987 some adhoc payment was made by the appellant on the direction of Commissioner of Central Excise. Vide order dated 30-6-1984/5-7-1984 Asstt. Commissioner passed order allowing certain deduction and disallowing some deductions. On 15-10-1984 corrigendum was issued stating that total duty is over Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were produced by the appellant. On 19-11-1987 the superintendent of central excise stated that abatements /deductions were allowed and the amount of Rs. 36,06,971/- paid on the 9-12-1997. Vide letter 23-12-1987 the superintendent of Central Excise held that the appellant was entitle to refund of Rs. 39,65,041/- for the period from November, 1974 to December, 1983. Vide letter dated 11-6-1998 appellant forwarded copy of the challan evidencing payment and submitted that duty has been paid and hence refund of Rs. 39,65,041/- should be granted to them by passing consolidated final assessment order. The show cause notice dated 7-4-1999 was issued by the department reopening entire assessment for the period from November, 1974 to March, 1996. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und is clearly not time bar. As regard the unjust enrichment also, since duty was provisionally paid and it was finalised only after prolonged litigation up to the Supreme Court and thereafter as per Tribunal order, the assesement was provisional therefore in case of payment of duty on provisional basis, the unjust enrichment is not applicable as specific provision for unjust enrichment was brought into Rule 9B subsequent to the period involved in the present case i.e. by amendment dted 25-6-1999. Therefore unjust enrichment in the present case is not applicable. He further submits that the period of provisional assessment was from 1974 to 1983 whereas the duty was paid under differential demand of duty during the period February, 1984 to F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t done by the appellant therefore it cannot be said that the refund has arisen out of final assessment and unjust enrichment is not applicable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Coastal Gases & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Ws. Asstt. CCE., Visakhapatnam 1997 (92) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) (b) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai V/s. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 2004 (163) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) (c) Union Of India Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) (d) Metal Forgins Ws. Union Of India 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) (e) Coastal Gases & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Asstt. CCE,, Vishakhapatnam (f) Union Of India Ws. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) (g) J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present case. Claim filed way back on 11-6-1998 vide the said letter should also be treated as refund. For this reason also refund is not time bar. As regard the unjust enrichment, it is admitted in the adjudication that assessment was finalised on 15-7-1984 and by way of corrigendum dated 15-10-1984 and necessary adjustment of duty was made on 18-7-1997, therefore the present refund claim is arising out of the deposited amount of provisional assessment. Therefore refund which is arising out of finalization of assessment will not be governed by the provision of unjust enrichment as held by the Larger bench in case of Hindustan Zink Ltd(Supra). It was also held in the case of CEAT Ltd (supra) that in case refund claim arising out of the fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1989 Payment We refer to May. 1998 Bhandup Range amounting to 4th III. Rs. letter F.No.C.RX.R-111/CCAT/PME/MRF/98/971 dated of The Superintendent of Central Excise, to pay, duty Division, requesting us 47,27,164/- for the period 01.01.84 to 28.02.09. Now that the ast for the period January 1984 to February 1989 has been sessment sum of Rs 47,27.164/- is determined. Post Removal finalised and that the above payable by us towards excise duty on 95 Expenses. COPY certain In this regard, we are forwarding herewith a receipted of TR-6 challan No.040/1798-99 dated 9th June, the payment of excise duty made by us as per the above letter of The Superintendent of ....