9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that the impugned Order passed by the lower Appellate Authority has set aside the Order-in-Original holding that the same was not correct in sanctioning the refund without examining the issue of unjust enrichmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is not applicable in this case. In this connection, he cites the decision of the Triveni Chemicals Limited v. U.O.I. - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) - which holds that unjust enrichment provision is not applicable to a case where proceedings had come to an end before coming into force of the unjust enrichment provision. Shri Jain also claims that the above-cited decision of the Hon ble Gauha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which under Order dated 16-5-2000 directed the Original Authority to decide the matter expeditiously as per law subject to the observations made in the said Order. Shri Singh argues that in view of the subsequent developments and subsequent Orders passed by the Hon ble Gauhati High Court including the Order dated 16-5-2000, it is not correct to argue that the proceedings had come to an end on 13- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Division Bench of the said High Court leading to the subsequent decision of 16-5-2000. Thereafter, further proceeding has taken place as is seen from the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. Hence, it cannot be said that the proceedings had come to an end before introduction of the principle of unjust enrichment in the Central Excise law in the year, 1991. Therefore, in our cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
