2003 (8) TMI 378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tikar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. The appellants herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers not mechanically propelled and parts thereof , namely, tanker trailer, whether or not fitted with pumps. They had filed a classification list effective from 1-4-1992 classifying the above product under CETA sub-headin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... list filed under Ch. sub-heading 8704.00 has been filed after registering a protest against the classification. There is also no evidence to suggest that while working out the cum-duty price charged from their buyers for the subject goods they have considered the lower percentage of duty payable under C.S.H No. 8716.00 of the schedule. Whereas the relevant gate pass reveal payment of duty at the h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed under this Act, and not refundable to the appellants. Appeal for refund is accordingly rejected as untenable under the law. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the appellants are correct in contending that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied against them in the impugned order, was never an issue at any prior stage of the proceedings. They were not put to notice that this bar was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X