9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - ROM application Nos. E/ROM/202 & 206/99 have been filed by M/s. Saraswati Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. stating that there has been a mistake on the question of limitation and praying that the mistake may be rectified. 2. Arguing the case for the applicant Shri Vinay Garg, ld. Counsel s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not maintainable". However, from this it is not clear nor there is any indication that the proviso to Section 11A was invoked in para 6 of the impugned order the Tribunal has discussed Section 11D which came into effect w.e.f. 20-9-1991. We note that a question of limitation was dealt with in para 10 of the impugned order. Thus, we do not find any mistake, therefore, the ROM is rejected. 5.&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11D w.e.f. 20-9-1991. 3. Whether the provisions of Section 11D which are based on the principle of unjust enrichment are applicable to the incentive schemes of the Govt. of India which itself entitles the Appellant/Petitioner to retain the differential amount. 4. Whether the larger period of limitation can be invoked particularly when there has been no allegation of suppression ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be referred to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. 8. Insofar as the fourth point as indicated above was not agreed upon inasmuch as this point does not arise out of the Tribunal's final order, therefore, the following two points are referred to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court :- "1. Whether the introduction of Section 11D would invalidate enforcement of Notification Nos. 130/83-C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
