9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case, the appellant has filed certain refund claim for amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- out of which a claim of Rs. 2,72,532.59 was credited to Consumer Welfare Fund by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of unjust enrichment, but on appeal, the same was set aside as the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in case of pre-deposit of duty made on direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) has looked into the aspect of unjust enrichment and found that the amount of refund involved in this case was disclosed as revenue expenditure by debiting the same in profit and loss account in the year 1999-2000 and from this, it has been concluded that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers. He accordingly, while allowing the refund claim, credited it to the Consumer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up in appeal before the Tribunal against earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in case of pre-deposit and this order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded back with specific direction that bar of unjust enrichment will apply in case of pre-deposit also and claim is required to be examined as to whether the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
