2010 (4) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... B.V. Nagarathna, J.]. - The revenue has filed this appeal by challenging the final order No. 1238 of 2005 dated 27-7-2005 [2006 (193) E.L.T. 382 (Tri-Bang.)] passed in Appeal No. C/323/2002 dated 3-8-2005. 2. At the time of admission itself, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this court on 5-9-2006 which read as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exemption. He therefore rejected the claim for refund. 5. Against the said order, the respondent-assessee had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner [Appeals] who came to a conclusion that the imported equipment was entitled for exemption under the said notification and also the fact that the respondent was entitled for refund. However, he directed that the amount to be refunded has to be p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ality, the application for refund could not have been considered and therefore the authorities could not have granted exemption with regard to payment of customs duty when the assessment order was not modified or reviewed. He further submits that when the assessee had unjust enrichment in the context of the duty which had been paid by the assessee and was subsequently exempted, the Tribunal was no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... funds had held that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to exemption, the appellate authority had allowed the exemption as per the notification dared 2-6-1998. However, a direction was given to pay the amount to the consumer welfare fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. In fact, the Tribunal has gone into this question and has held that in fact there was no unjust enrichment by the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llect the duty from its customers. When such being the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the refund claimed was not hit by the rule of unjust enrichment. 13. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) and in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X