9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Common issue involved in both the appeals and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby Adjudication Orders were set aside and refund claims were allowed. 2. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite issue of notice. 3. After hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not taken into consideration the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors v. CCE reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (CEGAT) upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court. It has been held that even if the credit notes are issued, doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable. In the present case, I find that the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have paid back the excess amount and excess duty to M/s. CIL. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority allowing the refund to the appellants appears to be in order and is also in conformity with the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by him. Hence, the same requires no interference. 2. Accordingly, the department s appeal is dismissed. The stay application also st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
