TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgement of tribunal dated 26.8.2009 raising following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal is justified, in in the eye of law, in holding that the period in question being 10 08 98 to 30 10 98, i.e., prior to 25 06 99, the provisions of unjust enrichment would not apply in the light of the law declared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2009(235) ELT 629 (Tri. LB). We find that similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2008(231) E.L.T. 36 (Guj.). It can be seen that in one of the Tax Appeal, decided by the Bench in said case following issues were raised : (A) Whether in the facts and circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reference to provisions of Section 27 of the Act which generally deals with claim for refund of duty cannot be of any assistance to the revenue. Similarly the definition of the term assessment under section 2(2) of the Act also cannot help the revenue in light of the specific provisions of Section 18 of the Act which override all other provisions of the Act. The contention that the Court shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Revenue is bound in law to make the refund without any claim being required to be made by an assessee. This would be the position in law upto 12.7.2006 and not thereafter. 22 In the circumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded can the revenue succeed. Therefore, principles of unjust enrichment found in Section 27 of the Act cannot be read into the provisions of Section 18 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accordingly allowed for the reasons stated in judgment of even date rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 638 of 2006. We find that subsequently also in decision in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2010(262) E.L.T. 106 (Guj.), this view has been followed by this Court. Under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
