9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not refer to any material or any relevant fact to enable him to assail the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the arguments on the basis of unjust enrichment – There was no substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal – Decided against Appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 34 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2012 - Ashok Bhushan and Prakash Krishna, JJ. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94,263. After the order of the Tribunal, the appellant submitted an application for refund of the amount which was allowed vide order dated 21-10-2004 of the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that a cheque for refund of the amount was prepared. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the cheque and made the payment. 3. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. He submits that the Commissioner (appeals) erroneously followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court and ignored the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the Commissioner (Appeals), examined the principle of unjust enrichment in the impugned order as under :- I find that the contention of the department that the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim after examining the unjust enrichment. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. 5. Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any material or any relevant fact to enable him to assail the finding recorded by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
