9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents. Heard counsel. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 2,1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'H', Bombay. By the impugned order the Assistant Collector rejected refund claim of Rs. 2,36,003.91 under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to show cause why amount of Rs. 77,187/- which was refunded to the petitioners on January 23, 1990 should not be recovered back on the ground that the refund was made in violation of the principles of unjust enrichment. 3. The petitioners appeared before the Assistant Collector and pointed out that the recovery of duty by the Department was in violation of law. The petitioners relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order proceeds to deny the claim solely on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to refund as they have recovered back amount of tax from the customers. In our judgment, the order of the Assistant Collector suffers from serious infirmity and cannot be sustained. It is wrong on the part of the Assistant Collector to rely upon the decision of Roplas case when the said decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
