2005 (8) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund of Rs. 2,65,718/- was allowed. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the refund claim is time-barred as well as refund claim is subject to the principles of unjust enrichment. 4. The brief facts of the cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owing the credit in their PLA. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) after getting due verification from the jurisdictional Range, Supdt. allowed the refund. 5. In this case in pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the bank guarantee was encahsed by the Revenue on 19-3-98 and the amount is deposited in the bank on 20-3-98 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X