SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Gomti Processors Sachin Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (17 Jan 2022)

Provisions of unjust-enrichment of Rule 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be applied retrospectively

MANU/CS/0009/2022

Excise

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 25th June, 1999.

The appellant submits that the issue is no more res-integra. The amendment was brought into statute with effect from 25th June, 1999 whereby the unjust-enrichment provision was inserted, even in the cases of provisional assessment, the unjust-enrichment is not applicable prior to amendment.

In present 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 25th June, 1999. Therefore, the provisions of unjust-enrichment of Rule 9B(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 cannot be made applicable retrospectively. Hence the refund claim could not have been rejected on the ground of unjust-enrichment.

This Tribunal while dealing with identical facts in the case of Shree Balaji Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited vs. CCE (Appeals) observed that, there was no provision of unjust enrichment in the case of provisional assessment under Rule 9B. This express provision brought into the statute w.e.f. 25th June, 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. Panasonic Battery India Co Ltd., wherein the Larger Bench held that for the duty paid during the provisional assessment and consequential refund on finalization, the provision of unjust enrichment is not applicable before 25th June, 1999. The facts of the present case are the same as in the above cited judgment. The impugned order is set-aside. Appeal is allowed.

Tags : PROVISIONS   UNJUST-ENRICHMENT   APPLICABILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved