JUDGMENT R. Gururajan, J.—This appeal is at the instance of the revenue. Facts in brief are as under; M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Karur are the manufacturers of articles of Asbestos Cement falling under CH. 68 of CETA, 1985. The Assessee had paid duty on provisional basis during the period 20-8-1982 to 30-9-1996 due to various abatements claimed by them. The assessments were finalised by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Davangere vide order-in-original No. 13/99, dated 24-5-1999. Consequent to the finalizations of assessments, the Assessee filed a claim for refund of Rs. 76,06,774/-. Show cause notice was issued to the Assessee on 4-8-2000 seeking rejection of the refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, rejected the refund claim vide order-in-original No. 44/2000, on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. Similarly for the period 1-3-1997 to 1-6-1998, the provisional assessments were finalized on the basis of the Order-in-Original No. 13/99, dated 24-5-1999. Consequent to finalization of assessments the Assessee filed a claim for refund of Rs. 3,18,018/-. Show cause notice was issued to the Assessee seeking rejection of the refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No. 45/2000 on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Aggrieved by the same Assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner (appeals) in OIA Nos. 144/2002 and 160/2003. The Commissioner (Appeals rejected the appeals and upheld the order-in-original Nos. 44/2000 and 45/2000. Aggrieved by the same Assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, which in turn remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had gone beyond the show cause notice. On remand, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assessee's appeal. The revenue filed unsuccessful appeals before the CESTAT, Bangalore. It is in these circumstances, Appellant are before me. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would argue that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in holding that the finalization was done prior to amended Rule 9B came into effect on 25-6-1999. He wants interference. 6. In the light of the argument of the Appellant, we have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal in its order has noticed that the finalization was taken placed before the amendment was brought in on 24-5-1999. He wants interference. 6. In the light of the argument of the Appellant, we have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal in its order has noticed that the finalization was taken placed before the amendment was brought in on 24-5-1999. The Tribunal has further noticed that the issue is no longer res integra in terms of the Order No. 1093/2004 dated 15-6-2004 in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. STI Products India Ltd., wherein it was held that the amended provisions will have only prospective effect and would not apply to cases where the assessments have been finalized prior to the date of amendment. The Tribunal has also noticed the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, JT (1996) 11 SC 283 . 8. We do not find any legal errors in the orders in question. 9. Appeal stands dismissed without being admitted.