9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chaudhary 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 subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e examined 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of this 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. Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
