TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said order of the Tribunal – Held that:- neither of the judgments on which placed by Revenue deals with the disputed issue as to whether the provisions of unjust enrichment would get attracted in respect of consequent refund arising out of finalization of provisional assessment, Cross Objection filed by the Revenue is rejected - C/1232/2005 - M/821/2011-WZB/AHD, - Dated:- 2-5-2011 - Ms. Archa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction filed by the Revenue. We note that there is no mention of Cross Objection filed by the Revenue in the said order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, proceed to dispose off the Cross Objection so filed by the Revenue. 3. It is seen that vide impugned orders, the original adjudicating authority as also Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of refund of duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and a refund has arisen on account of provisional assessment. The Tribunal held in favour of the appellant by relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. as reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 629 (Tri.-LB). The said decision of the Tribunal, in turn, was based upon the Hon ble Gujarat High Court s judgment in the case of CC v. Hindalco Industr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment. 6. In view of the above, we find that the Revenue s reliance on Hon ble Mumbai High Court s judgment in the case of M/s. Bussa Overseas Properties, is not appropriate. We further take into consideration the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)] and Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
