TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Kishori Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- In this case, the appellant has filed certain refund claim for amount of Rs. 5,90,000/- out of which a claim of Rs. 2,72,532.59 was credited to Consumer Welfare Fund by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of unjust enrichment, but on appeal, the same was set aside as the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the bar of unjust enrichment does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 657. 3. In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has looked into the aspect of unjust enrichment and found that the amount of refund involved in this case was disclosed as revenue expenditure by debiting the same in profit and loss account in the year 1999-2000 and from this, it has been concluded that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. I have considered the submission. I find that in this case, the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal against earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in case of pre-deposit and this order has been set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded back with specific direction that bar of unjust enrichment will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of duty has been passed on to their customers. His only plea is that the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply to the case of pre deposit. Since this has been expressly held by the Tribunal in the remand order that bar of unjust enrichment will apply to the case of pre-deposit also, I find no merit in the appellant's contention and accordingly, reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
