9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order communicated to Petitioner No. 2 by letter dated July 4, 1983, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition, intimating that the claim for refund made on July 4, 1983 is time-barred and has been filed beyond a period of six months, and therefore, the refund claim from the year 1977 cannot be considered. 2. It is not necess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the action of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division IV is wholly incorrect in view of my decision reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 625 (Shalimar Textiles Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India). Shri Rege, learned Counsel appearing for the Department, very fairly stated that the controversy in the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this Court in 1981 E.L.T. 468 (Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. &: Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.) and 1981 E.L.T. 531 (Wipro Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.) In these circumstances, even though the Department did not think it wise to cite the decision on which Shri Rege now wants to place reliance, it would not make any change in the ratio laid down in Shalimar Te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986. The learned Judge pointed out that reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court by the Department is erroneous. Supreme Court has repeatedly did not accept the theory of unjust enrichment and the decision in Madhya Pradesh's case makes no departure. I am in entire agreement with the learned Judge and therefore the claim of Shri Rege for unjust enrichment deserves to be turned down. 6. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
