9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just-enrichment are not applicable - Further, the deposit was made in 1986 and the provisions related to unjust-enrichment become part of statute in 1991 and the said provisions did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions related to unjust-enrichment to the present case does not arise - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL No.E/345/2008-EX[SM] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition, on 05.12.1986 respondent deposited ₹ 23,65,272/-. On 29.12.2003 respondent filed application for refund of ₹ 23,65,272/-. The Original Authority held that the respondent failed to put forth any documentary evidence to the effect that no credit of the amount deposited vide TR-6 Challan dated 05.12.1986 was availed in PLA and that it could not be proved that incidence of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3. The ground of appeal is that the respondent has not proved through their Balance Sheet that the duty incidence was not passed on. 4. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue, who has presented the grounds of appeal. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for respondent, who has argued that the amount sought as refund was deposited as revenue deposit and the deposit was against the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
