2005 (7) TMI 231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the department's appeal. The issue pertains to refund of duty paid in pursuance of an order of the original authority before filing an appeal against it before the Commissioner (Appeals). Later when the respondent succeeded before CESTAT, he pleaded for a refund of dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Bhubaneshwar v. Konark Wire (P) Ltd. [2000 (117) E.L.T. 681] wherein the Tribunal held that when the order confirming duty demand is set aside by the appellate authority, the applicant is automatically entitled to get back the duty deposited during the pendency of appeal. He also held that in a case of this type, a formal letter of protest und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lf is a protest. No formal letter of protest as required under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules is necessary in such cases. The Revenue's contention that para 86 of the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] is in favour of the Revenue is not correct. While it is true that the bar of unjust enrichment would certainly apply even to cases where duty i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X