9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an, P.K. Das, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Fateh Singh, DR, for the Appellant. Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. This is an appeal by the department against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. IND-I/257/2004, dated 28-6-2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Three issues are involved which have a bearing on the order relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been sold incurring loss and therefore they have crossed the bar of unjust enrichment. (b) A sum of Rs. 1,14,584/- was not sanctioned as refund by the original authority holding that the value enhancement proposed from US$ 325 per M.T. to US$ 375 per M.T. was justified. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not uphold the enhancement and allowed cash refund also holding that bar of unjust enrichme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Milton Laminates Ltd. v. C.C., Kandla, reported in 2006 (206) E.L.T. 797 (Tribunal) = 2006 (76) RLT 52 (CESTAT-Del.) wherein it has been held that excess debited in DEPB scrip can not be refunded in cash even if the validity of scrip had expired. 5. The ld Advocate seeks upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Advocate submits that the decision regarding non-applicability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the present case. However, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in permitting cash refund in the event of credit not possible in DEPB scrip is erroneous. We are in agreement with the view expressed in the case of Milton Laminates Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we hold that the appellant is eligible for credit of the excess amount paid only in DEPB credit and no cash refund is permissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
