9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Claim for refund of redemption fine and penalty, application of doctrine of unjust enrichment, interpretation of relevant legal provisions.
Summary: The appellants claimed refund of redemption fine and penalty paid in excess, which was credited to Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The appeals challenge the lower appellate authority's orders. The appellant argues that unjust enrichment does not apply to refund of fine or penalty, citing precedents. The Respondent contends that unjust enrichment is based on equity and applies to all refund claims, relying on legal judgments. The Tribunal considers the Supreme Court's stance on unjust enrichment and holds that it can be invoked to deny refund if burden of proof is not met. The Tribunal emphasizes that penal liabilities cannot be transferred to innocent parties, creating a presumption against passing on fine and penalty. The burden is on the department to prove otherwise. The matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration based on equitable principles. The Tribunal distinguishes the earlier Tribunal decision on unjust enrichment, stating that refund of fine and penalty falls within its purview. The appeals are allowed by remand to the original authority for further review. In conclusion, the Tribunal sets aside lower authorities' orders and remands the appeals for reconsideration in light of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and equitable principles.
|
