9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative Per: P.K. Das The appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of claim of interest of Rs. 10,16,738.00. The original authority rejected the claim of interest of Rs. 8,40,358.00 as time barred and the balance amount of Rs. 1,76,380.00 was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant is eligible for claim of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest, subject to the satisfaction that the amount as claimed to be refunded, has not been passed on to the buyer/consumer." 3. On perusal of the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that the Section 11 B of the said Act is not applicable in respect of claim of interest. Revenue has not filed appeal against such finding. On a query from the Bench, the Learned Advocate sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest was introduced in Section 11 B of the said Act w.e.f. 10.05.2008. The Tribunal in the case of T & D Galiakot Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the unjust enrichment on refund of interest would not be applicable before 10.05.2008, introduced to Section 11 B of the said Act. The relevant portion of the said decision order is reproduced below:- "Apart from being in agreement with the above submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11 B of the Act would not be applicable and therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment would also not be applicable. Thus, the rejection of refund of interest is not sustainable.
6. In view of the above discussions, the rejection of claim of interest of Rs. 10,16,738.00 is set-aside. The Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
