9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant is differential duty therefore it cannot be said that amount paid by the appellant is deposit and not the duty. The refund of duty paid in excess is subject to test of unjust enrichment as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - unjust enrichment is very much applicable in the present case which the appellant could not prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, accordingly, impugned order is sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal before Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27-09-2006 remanded the matter to the CESTAT for re-examining issue of unjust enrichment a fresh. The said remand matter is covered under Appeal No. E/ 3739/03. With reference to the appellant's refund claim filed on 28-10-2005, the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 27-9-2006 sanctioned the refund claim relying on CESTAT order dated 24-08-2005. Revenue's appeal filed against the order dated 27-09-2006 before Commissioner(Appeals) was allowed vide order-in-appeal dated 1-2-2013 against which appellant filed appeal before this Tribunal which is registered as Appeal No. E/ 87345/13. 2. Ms. Anajali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that duty was deposited d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said that refund is of deposit and not of duty. He submits that irrespective of any nature of refund unjust enrichment is applicable on all types of refund. He submits that in earlier order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal on the basis of decision in case of Parle International Ltd Vs, UOI [2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.)], however the said judgment was reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Vs. Parle International Ltd [2005 (188) E.L.T. A81 (S.C.)] (b) Commissioner of C. Ex. Shilong Vs. Woodcraft Products Ltd [2002 (143) E.L.T. 247(S.C.)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai ll Vs, Vikas Testing & Development [2009 (238) E.L.T. 790] (d) Vik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
