2007 (9) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order, as an identical issue is involved and both the appeals are arising out of same impugned order-in-appeal. 2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LPG cylinders and supplying to Oil companies viz. M/s. IOCL, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., M/s. Hindustan P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same on account of unjust enrichment. There is no appeal by the Revenue against the limitation aspect. As such, we are required to see the unjust enrichment issue in the present appeals. 3. It is the appellant's contention that the duty which the appellant paid in excess, were subsequently adjusted by oil companies while making payment for subsequent clearances. As such, it is their con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reme Court as reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. A208 (S.C.). 4. The ratio of all the above decisions is that where excess payment made towards price and duty are adjusted by buyers from subsequent payments which are otherwise due, the question of unjust enrichment will not arise. The above decisions have distinguished the Larger Bench decision in case of M/s. Grasim Industries (Chemical Division .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X