9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms. Such goods were further used by the appellant captively for the manufacture of their final product. It was in these circumstances, Tribunal held that deposits made prior to provisional relief of the goods have to pass the test of unjust enrichment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) held in favour of the appellant on the ground of time bar by holding that the said amount is not duty and is in the nature of deposit with the Revenue, in which case, no time limit is applicable. 3. However, while dealing with the issue of unjust enrichment, he took note of the Mumbai High Court judgment in case of M/s. Suvidhe Ltd. v. UOI as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Mumbai) followed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the deposit. Otherwise also, he submits that it is well settled law that pre-deposit do not attract unjust provision. For this, he relies upon the following decisions: (a) M/s. Morarjee Goculdas Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 556 (Tri.-Mum) = 2008 (11) S.T.R. 444 (Tri-Mumbai) (b) CCE, Chandigarh-I v. M/s. Modi Oil & General Mills - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P&H) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant captively for the manufacture of their final product. It was in these circumstances, Tribunal held that deposits made prior to provisional relief of the goods have to pass the test of unjust enrichment. On the other hand, the decisions relied upon by the appellant are clearly to the effect that any deposit made either through investigation or subsequent to confirmation of demand do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
