2001 (6) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se are, briefly, as follows :- 2. Two refund claims relating to the period 13-6-1984 to 7-1-1985, filed by the appellants, were rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise as per Order-in-Original dated 18-6-1991. That order was passed on grounds including unjust enrichment. The decision of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claims on the ground of unjust enric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the aggrieved party. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the two sides. 4. The refund claims in question relate to a period prior to the amendment of law whereby the provisions of unjust enrichment we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... subject SCN, raising the same old plea of unjust enrichment and both the lower authorities upheld the plea, constraining the party to approach this Tribunal once again. 5. As rightly submitted by ld. Advocate for the appellants the present SCN proceedings are hit by the rule of res judicata inasmuch as the question whether the refund claims could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X