TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had taken the view that the goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Held that- In the instant case, admittedly, though CEGAT had held in favour of the petitioners, there was no order passed by the respondents on the application for refund. Thus, the respondents are directed to dispose of the pending application for refund according to law. The entire exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the correspondence dated 15th April, 1991 and 16th April 1991. In the communication of 15th April, 1991, petitioners were fully aware that in order to get the refund, they had to fill in the "unjust enrichment form". The contention of the petitioner was that as they are traders and as such there is no need to comply with the same. 3. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 328 (S.C.) is that the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' arises where retention of benefit is considered to be contrary to justice or against equity and that is based on the doctrine of restitution. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 merely recognizes that doctrine. In other words, any person now seeking a refund even if an order of the Tribunal is in their favour will have to satisfy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
