2009 (10) TMI 729

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he department (appellant) is for stay of operation of the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a claim for refund of Rs. 10,43,190/- to the respondent after holding that the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the lower appellate authority examined the evidentiary materials produced by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aim for refund of redemption fine. We note that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was only applying the above doctrine to the refund claim in question. In doing so, he found that the claim was not barred by unjust enrichment. Yet another fact, which we have taken note of, is that the above amount is lying with the department for almost more than one year since the impugned order was passed. It ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X