2005 (9) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund arose actually only after the decisions of the CEGAT. Till then there was a dispute as to the manner in which the benefit was to be worked out. By the time the claim for refund were taken up for consideration, Section 11-B had already been amended. It now provided that where the amounts had already been recovered from customers, no refund could be made - Decided against assessee. - 4944 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... une, 1976 was to be calculated. This dispute was ultimately decided by CEGAT in favour of the Appellants. The claim for refund had then to be worked out. Pursuant to the decision of CEGAT, the Appellant's claims for refund were taken up for consideration in 1993. By that time Section 11-B had been amended and the doctrine of unjust enrichment had been incorporated in Section 11-B. Thus even though .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nrichment should not be applied. It was submitted that the law prevalent at that time should be applied. In support of this submission reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 383 (S.C.). 5. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the law prevalent at the relevant time has to be a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X