2016 (10) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. ORDER By the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original. The issue involved in the present appeal is that whether unjust enrichment is applicable in case of refund of pre-deposit made under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority while passing the sanctioned order in respect of refund against pre-deposit held that in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner of Central Excise, Pune-I v. Sandvik Asia Ltd. [2015 (323) E.L.T. 431 (Bom.)]. 3. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Hasija, ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus. [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ovisions of unjust enrichment is applicable. However I find that the adjudicating authority has decided that unjust enrichment is not applicable, he has not gone into factual matrix whether incidence of pre-deposited amount has been passed on to any other persons or otherwise. As regard the judgment cited by the ld. Counsel of Bombay High Court's judgment in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. (supra), this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X