2012 (8) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he demand and allowed the benefit of Notification - respondent filed refund claim – Held that:- Refund claim was filed as consequential relief in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal and the differential duty was paid under protest - no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund is sanctioned - appellant failed to show that the burden of duty h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation 38/78-Cus. Revenue denied the benefit of Notification and respondent paid the higher rate of customs duty under protest. The respondent challenged the order denying the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 5.4.1991 set aside the demand and allowed the benefit of Notification. The respondent filed refund claim in pursuance of the order pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al against the same impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment instead of sanctioning the refund claim and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. As noted above, the refund claim was filed as consequential relief in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal and the differential duty was paid under p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X