9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the respondents. The learned JDR has contended that it was for the respondents to prove that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to another person in terms of Section 11B of the Act and having failed to prove t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty as incentive on the higher production in the year 1976-77 as compared to the base clearance. The Department accepted their claim and sanctioned the refund of the amount in dispute i.e. Rs. 2,42,279/-. But later on, the Department officials felt that they had paid excess amount to the respondents, called upon the respondents to redeposit the amount in question. The respondents accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim on this ground. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed his order-in-original, through the impugned order by holding that the said doctrine is not attracted to the case of the respondents. I find that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and legal. The refund allowed was on account of a rebate in terms of Notification No. 198/76 to the respondents. The refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
