9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain, Member (T) ]. The subject stay application has been filed by the Revenue praying for staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Authority holding that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise at this stage inasmuch as the goods are still with the respondents. It appears from the Order-in-Original that after clearance of Synthetic Waste, the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The said authority have found that the question of unjust enrichment to the respondents at this stage does not arise because the goods are still lying with them and they have not sold the goods to another person. Therefore, the Order-in-Original was set aside and the refund of the aforesaid amounts has been ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the appellants (respondents herein) are entitled to the benefit of refund in the event of not having passed on the burden. This finding, he submits has been given in favour of the respondents. There is no appeal by the Revenue against this finding. On the other hand, he submits Revenue has questioned the admissibility of refund on merits urging that the benefit of Notification No. 85/95-C.E., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, submits that the admissibility of refund vis-a-vis the Notification has remained unnoticed so far. 6. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the ld. Advocate, Shri L.P. Asthana. Contention of the ld. JDR that the original authority has not looked into the Notification No. 85/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 is not cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
