9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT, MUMBAI] and C.C.E., Mumbai-V v. Shree Ram Textile reported in [2005 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that the provision of Section 11B are not applicable for refund of excess duty paid under compounded levy scheme. We, therefore, of prima facie view that in this case the refund claim is not hit by principle of unjust enrichment. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand and interest is, therefore, waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted. - E/1992/2011 - Stay Order No. 270/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 6-1-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N. Pathak, DR, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id to them. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner and the Review appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 11-3-2011 reversed the Assistant Commissioner s order holding that the sanctioning authority has incorrectly granted refund to the appellant without considering the angle of unjust enrichment. He accordingly directed the sanctioning authority to recover the wrongly granted refund amount from the appellant and get it credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per the requirement of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, read with Section 12C(2)(a) ibid. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal along with stay application ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of pre-deposit by reiterating the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and emphasised that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.), the principle of unjust enrichment would be applicable to all the refunds. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 4. In this case, the duty for the entire month of April, 2010 had been paid in the beginning of month - 5th April, 2010 at the rate of duty in force at that time. The rate of duty was reduced only w.e.f. 13-4-2010. In view of this, we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
