9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant as a consequence of the earlier decision of the Tribunal stands rejected by the lower authorities on two grounds : (i) on the ground that the same cannot be refunded in cash, and (ii) that the appellant has not satisfied the unjust enrichment angle - as the amount deposited was in the nature of pre-deposit, the principles of unjust enrichment would not apply in terms of the law declared in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elled upto Tribunal and was resolved in favour of the assessee. 2. As a consequence, appellant became entitled to refund of the above amount as the said amount was debited from Cenvat credit account and the appellant was praying for return of the said deposit in cash, the original adjudicating authority rejected their claim by observing that the same cannot be refunded in cash. He also rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has not satisfied the unjust enrichment angle. 5. As regards the first issue, ld. Advocate submits that during the earlier period, their factory was lying close and as such they were insisting refund of the said duty in cash. Subsequently the factory stands taken over by M/s. Crystal Phosphates Ltd. and as such they have no objection if the refund is given in the Cenvat credit acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
