2022 (2) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Patel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR : The issue involved in the present case is that, whether the unjust-enrichment is applicable in the facts of this case where the duty was paid provisionally prior to amendment to Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 brought into statute with effect from 25.06.1999. 2. Shri S. Suryanarayanan, learned Counsel appearing on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....visions of unjust-enrichment in the fact that duty of the gallery portion is paid provisionally. I find that in this case, the duty was paid under provisional assessment during December 1998 to May 1999. At the relevant time, there was no provisions of unjust-enrichment in Rule 9B (5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same was inserted from 25.06.1999. Therefore, the provisions of unjust-enric....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....chment in the case of provisional assessment under Rule 9B. This express provision brought into the statute w.e.f 25.06.1999 by inserting the Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax vs. M/s Panasonic Battery India Co Ltd, wherein the Larger Bench held that for t....