TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation can be said to be a pure legal issue. Such a plea raises a mixed question of law and facts and it is only after the applicable facts attract a bar and those facts are admitted, but the issue raised is whether the interpretation of the legal provision bars the remedy, then, it could be, in a given case, said to be a pure legal issue. Ordinarily, however, it is a mixed question - We are unhappy at the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the Appeals. We do not think that we should conclude the issue on both points, namely, whether there is a period of limitation prescribed and at the relevant time which is attracted and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment can be invoked. Appeals restored to the file of the Tribunal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gorically reported that refund is not hit by unjust enrichment? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct to hold in Appeal Nos. E/3142/02 E/3143/02 that the Refund Claims are barred by limitation, in a case where, the limitation would start from the finalisation of provisional assessment, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in SAMRAT INTERNATIONAL [1992 (58) ELT 561 (SC) and in any case limitation was not the ground before Original Authority for denial of refund? 3. Very few facts are required to be noted for appreciating the argument of Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of textile yarn and fabrics and at their factory in Mumbai. They are registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which required the appellants to file a detailed written submissions and which came to be accordingly filed. Thereupon, further Orders-in-Original and on remand came to be made in the month of January, 2001. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that the principle of unjust enrichment which was invoked has been rightly invoked by the Department. Therefore, there was an Order passed. But it appears that the Department filed Review Appeals against the two Orders-in-Original and that is on the assumption that the two Orders-in-Original grant partial relief. In these Appeals and which were disposed of on 28.3.2002, the Order-in-Original was set aside and the Appellate Authority granted refund by this Order. But he also held that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, in this case, the question of limitation can be said to be a pure legal issue. Our normal and ordinary understanding is that such a plea raises a mixed question of law and facts and it is only after the applicable facts attract a bar and those facts are admitted, but the issue raised is whether the interpretation of the legal provision bars the remedy, then, it could be, in a given case, said to be a pure legal issue. Ordinarily, however, it is a mixed question. It is only when Tribunals like CESTAT in the present case arrive at a definite conclusion that on the facts and as deduced from the records the claim is time barred, that such findings should be rendered. We are unhappy at the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
