9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , unjust enrichment would not be applicable - when the sale price of the final product is decided by Government from time to time, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise – Revenue’s appeal rejected - C/91/2010 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2011 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. Written submissions by the Assessee; Shri Rajendra Nagar, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Mr.B.S.V. Murthy: Four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. Thereafter, the appellant filed four refund claims on 24.3.08, totally amounting to Rs.2,26,240/-, being the duty charged on the cost of transportation of the fertilizers from barges from the anchorage. The Commissioner (Appeals), in his impugned order, allowed the appeal, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of appellant itself as reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidy is also a relevant factor. As regards the decision in appellant s own case, he submits that the issue in that case was refund of duty paid in respect of capital goods whereas the issue in this case is different. Further, he submits that the Larger Bench had clearly directed that unjust enrichment aspect may be considered. In this case, the appellant have failed to cross the hurdle of unjust e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to 13.7.06, if the assessment was provisional, unjust enrichment would not be applicable. Learned SDR fairly admitted that in this case, the assessment was provisional and not final. Therefore, the question of unjust enrichment in this case is not applicable. Further, I am unable to appreciate the view that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of appellant rendered earlier cannot be appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
