9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Rajiv Shakdher, J.]. - This is an appeal, which is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-7-2008, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal) [2009 (234) E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal)]. 2. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal returned two findings, in favour of the assessee i.e., the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding, returned by the Tribunal, with regard to the unjust enrichment, approached this Court by way of the instant appeal. 3.1 The appeal was predicted on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of : Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow v. Kesar Enterprises Ltd., 2006 (197) E.L.T. 317 (S.C.). 4. The contention of the Revenue was that the principles of unjust enrichment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow v. Kesar Enterprises Ltd., the second direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and therefore, the judgment in this matter, needs to be remanded to the Tribunal, for adjudication, on merits. 6. Mr. P.R. Ranganathan, who appears for the assessee/first respondent cannot, but, submit that on account of the aforementioned jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s requested to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, though not later than 31-8-2017. 7.4 We make it clear that it would be open to both parties, to raise all contentions, with regard to, whether or not, the bar of unjust enrichment would apply to the refund claim preferred by the assessee/first respondent. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
