TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w.e.f. 1-1-2005 and that particular fact made the appellant handicapped to claim Cenvat credit -No dispute that certain amount was deposited by the appellant who had subsequently availed Cenvat credit on the same amount - Pleading of the appellant was also that deposit was also made under protest - It appears that pleading of the appellant did not appeal to the learned appellate authority for whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed from foreign service provider was not brought to tax net w.e.f. 1-1-2005 while the appellant s adjudication has been done for the period 2002-03 and 2004-05. 3. The appellant submitted further that considering that the amount in question was paid under protest and utilized for availing Cenvat credit being reversed subsequently, learned adjudicating authority allowed the claim of refund o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) was not before him. So also, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the same case the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Dimensional Stone v. CCE, Jaipur - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 313 (Tri. - Del.) was also not before him. Therefore, he considered that Cenvat credit is not admissible. 5. There appears that there is no dispute that certain amount was deposited by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceive his consideration to list the bar of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, he is expected to examine from both angle i.e. the angle of immunity from tax and doctrine of unjust enrichment following the statutory provisions as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court for Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE C - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.). So also, if there shall be taxability, the law sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
