2007 (6) TMI 425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . [Order]. - Grievance involved in this appeal as per learned Counsel for Appellant is that the refund claim made on 13-9-1989, not entertained for a period of six years, has debarred the appellant from its claim in the plea of unjust enrichment by Revenue. This grievance is redressable following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Che .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of the day.   It is unfortunate to notice that the impugned order itself shows that although the first appeal order conferring right to refund   was  passed on 9-9-1987 that was issued on 25-8-1989 i.e. merely two years after passing of the order. Although Revenue disputes that the duty was not paid under protest, conduct of the appellant disputing the classification its .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....   bar of unjust enrichment for the delay made in considering application of Appellant.  During pendency of such application for a period of nearly six years, law relating to refund had undergone amendment in the year, 1991. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. (supra),   the claim of the appellant is entertainable. Added t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X