2005 (5) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessable value. The appellants were asked to show cause why the deductions claimed should not be disallowed. In the order dated 19-4-93 the Assistant Collector allowed some deductions and disallowed some others. Thereupon the Superintendent passed an assessment order and ordered recovery of Rs. 4.58 crores. In appeal the Commissioner upheld the order-in-original and the assessment order. The appellants filed an appeal against this to the Tribunal. The latter set aside the order of the original authority dated 22-9-93 and remanded the matter to the original authority with the direction that he should await the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi and then decide the issue of admissibility of deductions claimed. In due co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll pay the deficiency of making a debit in the account current within 10 days of receipt of copy of the return from the proper officer and where such duty is less the assesseee shall take credit...." The assessee submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that theirs was a case of provisional assessment and therefore adjustment was called for at the time of finalisation. The Commissioner however held that the assessee's case was not one of provisional assessment and therefore Rule 9B does not come into play. The Deputy Commissioner was dealing with a refund claim. Once he held that the refund was hit by bar of unjust enrichment he should credit the amount sought as refund to CWF. He was not authorised to deduct the demand amount from the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1990 (46) E.L.T. 438 (Tribunal)]. Held that excess duty paid by assessee to be adjusted while realising demand. Assessee entitled to set-off for the excess duty paid as against the short duty paid by him erstwhile Rule 173-I(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (6)     [2004 (172) E.L.T. 473 (Tr.)]. Held that when valuation is re-determined after introduction of new Valuation Rules the Department's view that the assessee should file a refund claim for the excess duty paid and adjustment is not possible is incorrect. 7. We have perused all the decisions. We do not dispute the correctness of these decisions. However, we observe that none of these decisions have dealt with the bar of unjust enrichment while laying down t....