TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise Act; that the clearances of excisable goods were allowed on the basis of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. M.R.F., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433, the Assistant Commissioner under Order dated 31-3-1997 disallowed certain expenses; that thereafter the Appellants submitted papers, documents and evidence to the Range officer and on the basis of these evidences submitted by them, the Assistant Commissioner passed the Order dated 5-5-1997 finalising the provisional assessment for 17 years [1974-75 to 1987-88 and 1991-92 to 1993-94]; that the Assistant Commissioner after referring to monthly despatches, monthly duty paid in respect of each bran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order, had rejected their appeal holding that for want of required documents evidencing payment of duty of excise, the adjustment of duty on finalisation of provisional assessment remained pending till 18-12-2000 and "when the Assistant Commissioner had decided their all seventeen refund claims on 18-12-2000, Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was in effect in amended form as amended vide Notification No. 45/99-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-6-99 and according to such amendment it was mandatory on the part of the appellants to produce evidence showing that burden of incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers. In addition to above the Assistant Commissioner rejected all the refund claims on account of non-submission of docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Beltron Ltd., 2001 (95) ECR 281 (T). (iv) CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2001 (135) E.L.T. 140 (T) = 1999 (34) RLT 668 (CEGAT)]. The Tribunal has held that the provisions of unjust enrichment contained in Section 11B of the Act do not apply to provisional assessments during the period prior to issue of Notification No. 45/99-C.E., (N.T.), dated 25-6-1999 amending Rule 9B(5). (v) Smithkline Beechem Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur [2001 (137) E.L.T. 125 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 460 (CEGAT)]. (vi) CCE, Meerut v. Modi Paints & Varnish Works, 2000 (38) RLT 302 (CEGAT). 4.3.He, further, mentioned that the amendm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2)". The learned SDR contended that in view of these provisions even the refund arising out of finalisation of provisional assessment will be subject to principles of unjust enrichment. The learned SDR finally submitted that the amendment made in Rule 9B(5) is only clarificatory in nature and any clarificatory amendment has retrospective effect. 6.We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the assessments were provisional on account of claim of deduction of post-manufacturing expenses.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue involved in the present appeal is whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable. Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules at the relevant time of finalisation of assessments reads as under : "(5) When the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, and if the duty provisionally assessed fall short of, or is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be." 8.The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries has observed that "Any recoveries or refund consequent upon the adjustment....