TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred - E/2569/2006 - A/1093/2007-WZB/C-IV/(SMB)/MUM - Dated:- 30-7-2007 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri A. S. Uppal, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri M. A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]- This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/120/2006 dated 24-4-2006. 2. Considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as pre-deposit under the provision of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under : - "I have carefully gone through the case records and the various submissions made by the appellants. In the instant case, the issue for consideration is whether the refund of Rs. 2,42,117/- is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -deposit made under Section 35F and therefore, the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply while granting refund of the said amount after favourable decision of the Tribunal. In support of their plea the appellants have relied upon following case laws - (i) Parle International v. UOI - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.), (ii) Steelco Gujarat Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 67 (T) and ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore entitled for the refund of Rs. 2,42,117/-. Therefore, there is no merit in the stand of department." It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraph that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the series of judgments of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Modi Oil General Mills as reported at 2007 (210) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this matter would arise and accordingly the application filed by the Revenue is dismissed." 3. It is seen that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the decision of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Modi Oil General Mills (cited supra). The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and legal and does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
