2012 (11) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ount is not passed on to the others - principle of unjust enrichment could not apply in this case – refund allowed - E/306/2011 - A-341/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 4-11-2011 - Shri S.K. Gaule, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Mishra, Addl. Commr. (AR), for the Appellant. Shri A.C. Tikadar, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue is in Appeal against Order-in- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue is that in view of the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Poona Rolling Mills v. CCE, Pune-I - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.-Mumbai) the pre-deposit is also falls under the purview of unjust enrichment and the question of unjust enrichment has not been examined in this case. 5. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the Respondents draws attention to the Order-in-Original wherein lower a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ealed that amount is not passed on to others. Department could not produce anything contrary therefore Hon ble Tribunal decision is not applicable to this case. I do not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. Department s Appeal which is devoid of merits is dismissed and Commissioner (Appeal) s order is upheld. 7. Appeal dismissed. (Pronounced and dic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X