TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had unjustly enriched itself - appeal were filed for two times, and both the times, the appeal was rejected - HELD THAT:- The assessing authority once again rejected the refund claim, as against which an appeal was filed which was allowed by the 1st appellate authority by order dated 31.10.2012 stating categorically that the refund is not hit by the principle of unjust enrichment - This o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the authorities seeking a refund of an amount of ₹ 29,860/- but to no avail and has hence approached this Court seeking a direction in this regard. 3.The petitioner had claimed abatement for the period 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2001 towards the sale value of medicaments, that had been rejected by order dated 27.09.2003. The 1st appellate authority had set aside the order-in-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund is not hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. This order has become final and in my view, there ends the matter. In fact the counter, at paragraph 5 records this position. 5. It is thus incumbent upon the assessing authority to pass a consequential order of relief and grant the refund. 6. In the light of the admitted position that the order of the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
