9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has held that the refund of customs duty arising out the provisional assessment is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment, Revenue has filed the present appeal. It stands relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Raj Industries [2000 (120) E.L.T. 50 (S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention has been drawn to the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. A.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. CC, Visakhapatnam [2008 (85) RLT 552 (CESTAT-Bangalore)], wherein after allowing rectification of mistake application, the appeal was allowed. In the case of M/s. Timken India Ltd. v. CC, Kolkata [2007 (217) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.-Kolkata)], it was held that refund arising out of the final assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive of the amendment of the provisions of Section 18, refund of customs duty would be subjected to principles of unjust enrichment. For arriving at the above conclusion, the Bench has taken note of the Hon ble Supreme Court s latest decision in the case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.)] laying down that doctrine of unjust enrichment is based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., have not taken note of the said decision. As such, it can be safely concluded that there are two contra views available on the said disputed issue, in which case, the matter needs to be resolved by Larger Bench. Accordingly, we place the matter before the Hon ble President for constitution of Larger Bench to resolve the following issue :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
