TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to Petitioner No. 2 by letter dated July 4, 1983, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition, intimating that the claim for refund made on July 4, 1983 is time-barred and has been filed beyond a period of six months, and therefore, the refund claim from the year 1977 cannot be considered. 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail save and except mentioning that petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the action of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division IV is wholly incorrect in view of my decision reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 625 (Shalimar Textiles Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India). Shri Rege, learned Counsel appearing for the Department, very fairly stated that the controversy in the petition stands concluded by that decision. 4. Shri Rege urged that the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. : Anr. v. Union of India Ors.) and 1981 E.L.T. 531 (Wipro Products Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India Anr.) In these circumstances, even though the Department did not think it wise to cite the decision on which Shri Rege now wants to place reliance, it would not make any change in the ratio laid down in Shalimar Textile's case. 5. Shri Rege also urged that grant of refund to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court by the Department is erroneous. Supreme Court has repeatedly did not accept the theory of unjust enrichment and the decision in Madhya Pradesh's case makes no departure. I am in entire agreement with the learned Judge and therefore the claim of Shri Rege for unjust enrichment deserves to be turned down. 6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order passed by the Asst. Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
