2005 (6) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Nos. 1086-1098 which do not figure in today's list are being taken up for disposal along with Appeal Nos. 1029 and 1030 with the consent of both sides. 2. The job workers processed the raw tobacco supplied by the principal manufacturers and cleared the resultant product (branded chewing tobacco) to the latter. These removals were on payment of duty based on the price at which the principal manufacturers sold the goods from their depots. The clearances from the depots were also accompanied by similar payment of duty by the principal manufacturers. The assessable value of the goods, whether in the hands of the principal manufacturers or their job workers, did not include the "average freight". All the parties in their respective declara....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rders of rejection of refund claims did not succeed. The order passed by the lower appellate authority sustaining the orders of the original authority is under challenge in the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that, as their refund claims were consequential to finalisation of provisional assessment, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable. In this connection, he relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgments in the following cases :- (1)     CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd., 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) (2)     CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) While ld. Counsel has relied on pararaph-14 of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the hands of the lower appellate authority inasmuch as the orders passed by the original authority on the strength of the Tribunal's decision in JCB Escorts (supra) ceased to have legal effect consequent to the said decision being set aside by the Apex Court vide 2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.). All the refund claims under consideration are, admittedly, consequential to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which became final and binding on both the Revenue and the assessees. From these facts, the moot question has arisen as to whether the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could be considered to be one of adjustment of duty under Rule 9B. The SCNs, issued for finalisation of provisional assessments, had invoked this Rule and, ult....