2008 (2) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udhary and B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Department on the ground that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I. - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bombay) which has been relied upon by the Original Authority has been subsequentl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ined by the original authority. 4. Shri R.K. Chaudhary, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents also states that the original authority in page 7 of his order has recorded that the refund has a basis in the non-availment of the proforma credit under Rule 56A and the claim is therefore required to be examined in the light of non-applicability of the principles of Unjust Enrichment in terms of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case and in case he holds that the same is applicable, the appellants claim on the basis of balance sheet and the chartered accountant s certificate submitted by them should be examined. In other words, the original authority shall consider the respondent s plea on both the grounds and pass a fresh order after due examination and with reference to the facts of this case. Department s appeal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X