TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 17/2007 ST dated January 31, 2007 21 22/2006 Rs. 80,842 Rs. 61,014 The period of dispute is from 4 of 2005 to 12 of 2005. Each set of two 2. ST/175/2008 ST/176/2008 73 74/2007 dated January 30, 2008 55 56/2007 Rs. 80,842 Rs. 61,014 appeals filed by the Revenue are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of amounts mentioned above at two stages. Initially, the Revenue filed the appeal when the Commissioner (Appeals) had vacated the order of the original authority denying the refund claim filed by the appellants. The second set of appeals were filed when the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be rejected. We have also heard the learned Joint Chief Department Representative who submits that the impugned orders did not consider the unjust enrichment question. This was mandatory before allowing refund. In the first set of orders-in-appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims in question vacating orders of rejection passed by the original authority. Pursuant to those orders-in-appeal, when the assessee claimed the amounts of refund, the original authority rejected the claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. Vide the two impugned orders-inappeal, the Commissioner held that the first set of orders-in-appeal had become final in the absence of challenge by the Revenue. Accordingly, he vacated the orders of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with the provisions of subsection (2) substituted by that Act: Provided further that the limitation of (one year) shall not apply where any (duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty) has been paid under protest. . . . ((2) If, on receipt of any such application, the (Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise) is satisfied that the whole or any part of the (duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty) paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the fund: Provided that the amount of (duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty) as determined by the (Assistant Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the fund. These orders became final as held by the Commissioner in the impugned orders in the absence of challenge by the Revenue. In the case of Triveni Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2007] 8 RC 76; [2007] 207 ELT 324, the apex court made the following observations and rejected the claim of the Revenue that the principles of unjust enrichment applied to refund claims sanctioned but pending payment, when the orders sanctioning refund had reached finality. 8. We have noticed hereinbefore that the application for refund was rejected by the assessing authority. It was, however, allowed by the appellate authority. It is not in dispute that no further appeal was taken therefrom. The said order, therefore, attained finality. It matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
