2007 (2) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order]. - The Revenue came in appeal against the Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who concluded that the respondent company was entitled to the refund on the basis of the application made on 25-8-03 and pendency of such application does not debar them, if any of the authorities go in appeal during pendency of the Refund Application. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is called for. 3. Record demonstrates that the Refund Application dated 25-8-03 proved the accrual of the right to the refund. But that was only to meet the scrutiny required by law. Nothing in the record revealed that the respondent company was unjustly enriched to get the refund and even the Order dated 28-7-06, which granted refund to the resp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... p;Learned DR submitted that the unjust enrichment was not explained by the respondent company, for which the Revenue should succeed. Such contention at the fag end is also demerited for the absolute decree. The respondent company has only option for execution. The being executed, such preliminary issue does not call for any decision. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X