TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the provisions of unjust enrichment is clearly applicable. Even in the case of suo moto re-credit though in principle, the appellant is entitled but subject to test of unjust enrichment. In the interest of justice an opportunity can be given to the appellant to establish their case that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No.E/1042/08 & E/264/09 Appln.No.E/CO/36/09 - ORDER NO. A/86526-86527/2018 - Dated:- 24-5-2018 - Hon ble Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms.Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for appellant Shri.Ajay Kumar, Addl. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. There are two appeals filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Therefore, in case of pre-deposit, no formal refund application is required and the appellant is entitled to take suo moto re-credit. Therefore, the provisions of unjust enrichment is also not applicable in case of refund of pre-deposit. She place reliance on the following judgements: Suo moto taking of credit is correct in law: a) CEAT Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 349 (T) affirmed in 2013 (298) ELT 525 (Bom) b) ICMC Corporation Ltd. 2014 (302) ELT 45 (Mad) c) Krishnav Engineering Ltd. 2016 (331) ELT 391 (All) d) Finolex Industries Ltd. 2016-TIOL-2825-CESTAT-MUM e) Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (7) STR 613 (T) affirmed in 2006-(206) ELT 90 (Kar) f) Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (29) ELT 70 (T) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri-Kol) c) Suvidhe Ltd. 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom) d) Brooke Bond Liptons (P) Ltd. 1999 (107) ELT 228 (Tri) e) Karam Chand Thapar Bros (CS) Ltd. 2003 (151) ELT 342 (Tri-Kol) f) Nestle India Ltd. 2003 (154) ELT 567 (Kar) g) Ambica Hydraulics (P) Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 299 (Tri- Del) h) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. 2005 (183) ELT 9 (Guj) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. As regards the admissibility of the proforma credit to the appellants, the issue has been decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellant is in principle entitled for the refund of amount paid during the litigation. However, the appellants have paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
