2008 (10) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. -  Heard both sides 2. Appellants filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Contention of the appellant is that at the time of provisional release of goods amount in question was deposited with the Revenue and subsequently final assessmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon'ble Supreme Court. Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE & Cus, reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.). 5. We find that bar of unjust enrichment is applicable where the amount has been paid in pursuance of the provisional assessment order. We find that it decided by the Bombay High Court in the case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petition/appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X