9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k the duty, which he has paid, which in law he was not liable to pay as held by the original authority - Therefore, the Tribunal was justified under the facts of this case in upholding that the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is not attracted to the facts of this case - In the facts and circumstances of this case,do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and does not call for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est . Thereafter the original authority held that the said amount was non-excisable and sanctioned a refund of an amount of Rs. 7,49,932/-. However, the amount was credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal contending that at the time of clearance of the goods, there was an understanding between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order contends that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the assessee is not entitled to the amount ordered to be refunded on the ground of unjust enrichment and as such, the order passed by the original authority is in accordance with law and the Tribunal has committed an error in affirming the said order. 4. Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led to get back the duty, which he has paid, which in law he was not liable to pay as held by the original authority. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified under the facts of this case in upholding that the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is not attracted to the facts of this case. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
