CCE Vs. LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders, whereby refund claim filed by the respondent were allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were clearing goods under the provisional assessment orders and the assessments were finalized in the year December 1997. The respondents filed refund claims as consequential relief after finalization of the assessment. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that respondents are entitled for the refund and provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable as the assessment was finalized in the month of December 1997 and the provisions of unjust enrichment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules were introduced w.e.f. 25/06/99.

(2.) THE contention of revenue is that refund claims are subject to the principle of unjust enrichment and Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the same is not applicable in the present case.

(3.) WE find that the goods were cleared under provisional assessment orders and assessments were finalized in the month of December 1997 with effect from 25/06/99 the bar of unjust enrichment is incorporated in Rule 9B of Rules. We find this issue is now settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of