2014 (6) TMI 516

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their refund claim was rejected on the premise that the appellant has not proved unjust enrichment beyond doubt. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the appellant was having two units, Unit No. l and Unit No. 2. Both the units were registered with the Central Excise department. Unit No. 2 was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund claim on the premise that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In this case, when a unit has been closed in the year 2006 and there is no activity going on, if any payment is made in that account, the question of bar of unjust enrichment does not arise at all. Both the lower authorities have not examined the provisions of law. They merely relied on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X