TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-07-2000 on the ground of unjust enrichment and the same was ordered to be credited in Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that unjust enrichment provisions do not apply to the refund having arisen on account of finalization of provisional assessments, as held by the Tribunal in the decisions reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1014 (T) = 2000 (40) R.L.T. 597 (CEGAT) and 2001 (136) E.L.T. 85 (T) = 2000 (40) R.L.T. 450 (Tri.-CEGAT). Accordingly, he set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter with direction to verify whether the refund arose out of the finalization of provisional assessment and if it is so, then to allow the refund. 3. It is seen that in de novo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A90 (S.C.), CCE v. H R Johnson (I) Ltd., (v) 2007 (209) E.L.T. 53 (T) = 2007 (5) S.T.R. 212 (T) Beekalene Fabrics Ltd., v. CCE (B) Rejection of Chartered Accountant s certificate without cogent reasons not proper (i) 2005 (188) E.L.T. 301 (T) - Beekay Hosiery Industries v. CC (ii) 2005 (188) E.L.T. 60 (T) - Transformers Electricals Kerala Ltd. v. CC (iv) 2005 (187) E.L.T. 52 (T) = 2005 (70) RLT 539 (T-CESTAT), Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd. v. CCE (C) Unjust enrichment not applicable when the goods are saleable only at Govt., controlled price (i) 2001 (45) RLT 811 (CEGAT) - Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CCE (ii) 2003 (162) E.L.T. 840 (T) - Tamralipta Co-Op. Spinning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly, the Tribunal in the case of Gillooram Gouri Shankar v. CCE, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 330 (T) has held judicial discipline requires the lower authorities to follow the earlier orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. H R Johnson (I) Ltd., 2006 (201) E.L.T. 237 (T) has held that once matter decided on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his first order and matter remanded only for calculation of duties, and appellant never challenged the order, this order attained finality. Appellant not open to challenge the disputed issue on merits in de novo proceedings, if they were aggrieved with such order they have to file an appeal against it before the Tribunal. Subsequently in his second order the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
