9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of Unjust Enrichment - E/1108/2000-Mum - A/1695/2005-WZB/C-I(EB) - Dated:- 18-10-2005 - [Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The issue pertains to refund of duty paid in pursuance of an order of final assessment. The respondents paid Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) in pursuance of an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The Revenue's contention are four fold : (a) The Commissioner erred in ordering refund of duty even when de novo proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner were pending. (b) The Commissioner erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) paid by the respondents is in the nature of deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment or time bar against the respondents. The question of unjust enrichment is irrelevant when the adjudication itself has to be done de novo in pursuance of an earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals). An application for refund can arise only after de novo proceedings are completed. 4. The entire controversy can be put in a narrow compass. The respondents paid duty in pursuance of an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him. The respondent, therefore is right in seeking refund of duty paid against a non-existing order. Refund therefore is admissible. However, refund itself is governed by the provisions of unjust enrichment, The Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Limited - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) = 2005 (67) RLT 225 (S.C.) made this aspect very clear (para 47 of the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
