9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order]. - This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No. SRK/431/ Bel/2007 dt. 12-11-2007. 2. The necessary facts that arise for consideration are the appellant's factory was visited by the prevented staff of then Mumbai-III Commissionerate and they booked a case on account of wrong availment of exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dt. 28-2-1993. During the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase records and considered the averments made in the appeal and the written submissions. As held by the Supreme Court in Sahakari Khand Udyog case - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 and reiterated in CCE v. Parle International Ltd. (supra), the refund claim, had to pass the test of the unjust enrichment. The admitted position is that the impugned order does not state that any evidence establishing that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed by the Tribunal in various decisions. He also submits that it is the fact that the amount has been paid by them subsequent to the clearances of the goods from factory, hence there is no question of unjust enrichment. 4. Ld. JDR was reiterated the findings would submitted that the Ld. Commissioner was correct in allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 5. Considered the submissions ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in the case of Modi Oil & General Mills squarely covers the issue. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in paragraph 3 held as under :- "We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and find that no question of law would arise warranting acceptance of prayer of the Revenue to make a reference to this Court under Section 35G of the Act. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
