TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (J) Shri M.A. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sarova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- The challenge in the present appeal is to the rejection of appellant's refund claim by the authorities below. 2. As per the facts on record, the dispute arose for wrong availment of Modvat credit of duty availed by the appellant during the period 18-10-2003 to 3-3-2005. The appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,47,560/- vide T.R.-6 challan No. 15 dated 16-3-2006. 3. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to them on 23-11-2005 for confirming the above reversal of credit. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 11-8-2006 dropped the demand of Rs. 1,02,563/- on the ground of limitation but confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-2006. The said refund application considered by the Assistant Commissioner and was rejected vide his Order in Original No. 195/06 dated 13-3-2007. On an appeal filed against the same Commissioner (Appeals) has held vide his order dated 16-8-2007 that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable under Section 11B of that, in respect of pre-deposit and procedure under the said Section is not required to be filed. He accordingly, allowed the appeal. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue and as such, attained the finality. 7. Further, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the same demand again in his de novo proceedings conducted in consequent to the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's objection of wrong availment of credit. On the success of the appeal, the said pre-deposit is required to be refunded to the appellant as a consequential relief. It is well settled that principle of unjust-enrichment will not apply in the said case inasmuch as admittedly the said deposit was made on subsequent clearances of the goods and in any case related to the Cenvat credit availed on inputs. In any case I find that the deposit of Rs. 44000/- approximately, which was also a part of the same deposit, stands refunded to the appellant without any objection by the Revenue. 9. In view of the above discussions, I set aside the impugned order with directions to the lower authorities to allow the refund of disputed amount in question. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
