2007 (10) TMI 507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeal. I have heard Shri C. Lama, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri D.H. Natkarni, ld. Advocate for the respondent. 2. As per the facts on record, the respondent M/s. Mitesh Brothers are merchant exporters, they obtained free advance licences under DEEC scheme and imported Polyester Fibre. The sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ls). 3. The only dispute which survives is as to whether the respondent s refund claim would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. It was not their stand before Commissioner (Appeals) that inasmuch as the assessments were provisional, they would not attract unjust enrichment in terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries. They would also not be hit by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndum of appeal have only assailed that though the provisional assessment order was passed by the Asst. Commissioner, but the same was not followed by the assessee inasmuch as duty was paid on the higher assessable value and also under bond was executed. However, I find that irrespective of the fact of the assessments being provisional or not provisional, the fact remains that M/s. Mitesh Brothers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X