2008 (6) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 008 dated. 23.6.2008 certified on 9.7.2008 in Appeal No. ST/426/2007) Shri Pradyumna, Advocate, for the Appellants. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per S. L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)] - This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 82/2007 dated 31.10. 2007 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim of Rs. 4,33,446/- under the provisions of unjust enrichmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Services Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (2) STR 350 (Tri.-Kolkata) and J.R.K. Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (74) RLT 574 (CESTAT-Del.) = 2006 (206) ELT 338 (Tri.-Del.). 2. The learned DR submits that the amounts collected was required to be reimbursed to the Government as it was collected as duty/tax in terms of Section 11D of the Act. Even otherwise, the refund is hit by provisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant has not produced any evidence to discharge the burden of unjust enrichment. The amount collected ought to have been deposited to the Government under Section 11D of the Act in the cases where amounts were collected representing as Service Tax. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel are clearly distinguishable. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced and d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X