9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was superfluous at the stage when the same authorities have held that refund is not admissible. The question of unjust enrichment would only arise when the authorities come to the conclusion that refund is admissible to the appellant on merits. Once the lower authority come to the conclusion that refund is admissible on merits only then they can go into the question of unjust enrichment - No order under unjust enrichment can be issued rejecting the refund claim, the only order which can be issued under unjust enrichment is sanctioning the refund claim and transferring amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. There are no merit in the claim made by the appellant - appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the claim on the ground of limitation treating the payment made by the appellant as payment not made under protest. It was argued that no proper protest was lodged while paying the said amount. The original Adjudicating Authority rejected it on the ground of unjust enrichment and he observed that no documentary evidence has been submitted to discharge the onus put on the claimed by the law relating to unjust enrichment. The said order relies on the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India 2015 (326) ELT 450 SC to hold that the issue regarding liability of interest on account of payment of duty due to revision of prices have not been finally settled and the matter has been referred to the larger bench. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her argued that the issue of unjust enrichment cannot be made to applicable to payments made under protest during pendency of adjudication proceeding or investigation. He further argued that the refund claim is not barred by limitation. He further argued that the interest liability has been waived in terms of SVLDRS Scheme. 2.2. He further pointed out that the demands of interest liability were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-In-Original No. 07 /AC/ SLV-VII-DEM-1920 dated 20.06.2019, Wherein he has confirmed the demand of interest. The appellant had filed an application against the said order under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) against the order dated 28.06.2019. He pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed in the said show cause notice does not arise. 4.3. We find that the lower Authority has gone into the question of unjust enrichment which was superfluous at the stage when the same authorities have held that refund is not admissible. The question of unjust enrichment would only arise when the authorities come to the conclusion that refund is admissible to the appellant on merits. Once the lower authority come to the conclusion that refund is admissible on merits only then they can go into the question of unjust enrichment. No order under unjust enrichment can be issued rejecting the refund claim, the only order which can be issued under unjust enrichment is sanctioning the refund claim and transferring amount to the Consumer Welfar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
