TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPRESENTED BY : Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)]. - The appellant-revenue has proposed following three questions to be the substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 30-9-2008/1-10-2008 made by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) : "6.1 Whether in the facts circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in the eyes of law in holding that the said assessee is eligible entitled to the quantum of interest at the appropriate rate, as was prevailing during the relevant period, from the completion of the date thereof i.e., three (3) months from the date of the filing of the refund claim? 6.2 Whether the said assessee is elig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount in Consumer Welfare Fund. In the second round of appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15-5-2001 confirmed the order made by the Adjudicating Authority. This order was challenged by way of appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 10-4-2003 the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that there was no question of invoking principle of unjust enrichment in the second round as the issue had already been decided by Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order dated 22-9-1999 and the limited scope for which the matter had been restored to file of the Adjudicating Authority was to compute the exact amount to be refunded in cash and by way of credit in Cenvat Account. 5. Thereafter, though the amount of differential duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund arose was in relation to classification of the product which became final in 1997. The entitlement of the assessee to refund of duty which was paid at a higher rate became final, the classification having not been challenged by anyone. 8. Thereafter, merely because the application for refund was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and assessee was constrained to litigate, it does not mean that the right to refund, which had already crystalised in favour of the assessee, did not exist. The order made by the Tribunal in 2003 merely negatived the stand of the Revenue that the assessee was not entitled to refund of duty due to principle of unjust enrichment. It was not the stand of the Revenue that the assessee was not entit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
