9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents. Heard counsel. 2. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether there is any justification for the respondents not to implement the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) on October 4, 1988. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 3. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt into unjust enrichment and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Limited, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.), the petitioners are not entitled to any refund. The petitioners resisted the appeal by pointing out that the decision in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Limited is no longer a good law and a catena of decisions have been delivered by this Court pointing out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners seek relief of implementation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. In answer to the petition, return has been filed by Shri V.S. Bhosale, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the only plea raised is the application of principle of unjust enrichment. There is no merit whatsoever in this plea. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the defence of unjust enrichment is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Accordingly, rule is made partly absolute and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,22,699.75 to the petitioners within two weeks from today. In case, the Department fails to do so, then the amount shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from today till the date of repayment. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
