9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by way of pre-deposit (in this case the amount was paid pursuant to court order) attract the doctrine of unjust enrichment? - Held that: - the issue is no more res-integra and is settled by the decision in the case of SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS. [2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , where it was held that Before claiming a relief of refund, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-deposit, and thus sanctioning the refund of Rs. 2,72,532.59 to the respondents. There is no dispute that the claim is admissible on merits in view of the Tribunal's order No. 548/04-B dated 6-7-2004 [2004 (173) E.L.T. 377 (Tribunal)] accepting the assessees' claim for the benefit of exemption under Notification 208/82-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 to MS round bars manufactured by them, and the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai 2006 (200) E.L.T. 259 in which the appellants satisfied the Tribunal that duty burden was not passed on and therefore, the assessees were, held entitled to payment of refund amount. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on Tribunal's order in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, [2007 (213) E.L.T. 259 (Tri. - Mumbai) = 2007-TIOL-623], in which it was held that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und is also required to be tested on the anvil of unjust enrichment. Since the claim requires to be examined from this angle, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for examination as to whether the respondents have passed on the duty burden to their customers or not, and then pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
