9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions made by both sides and perused the records. The merits of the refund claim are not in dispute and both sides agree to the facts. The only question, which has to be decided, is that, whether the question of unjust enrichment applies to this case or not. The Hon ble Delhi High Court while disposing the writ petition of the appellant has held as under : The fact, however, remains that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the final assessment. This petition is, therefore, disposed of in these terms. Parties shall bear their own costs. 2. It can be seen that the provisional assessment of the appellant s goods were done under the direction of the Hon ble High Court s orders. The appellant deposited the amount of the duty provisionally assessed. It is the appellants claim that the provisional assessment as contemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 247 (SC) at paragraph 146 has held as under : The above aspects are fairly clear. Sections 11B(2) and (3) cannot be made applicable to refunds already ordered by the court or the refund ordered by the statutory authorities, which have become final. It follows from a plain reading of Section 11B, Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of the Act. The provisions contemplate the pendency of the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery clearly that any direction of the Courts should not be negated under the garb of the unjust enrichment. 4. As, in this case the refund of the duty has arisen due to mandamus of the Hon ble High Court in the appellant s writ petition, the judgment in the case of the Bussa Overseas [2003 (158) E.L.T. 135 (Bom.)] may not be applicable as the facts in that case were totally different than in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
