2005 (9) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i (in short "CEGAT") dated 29th March, 2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants have been denied refund on the ground that there would be unjust enrichment. The law regarding unjust enrichment is settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 3. The period for which refund is clai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd instituted for that purpose. 4. It is submitted that the claim for refund is based upon Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16th June, 1976. It is submitted that under this Notification the benefit could only become available at the end of the year as it had to be worked out as to what was the base clearances and the excess clearances. It was also submitted that during that period Rule 173(I) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he manner in which the benefit was to be worked out. By the time the claim for refund were taken up for consideration, Section 11-B had already been amended. It now provided that where the amounts had already been recovered from customers, no refund could be made. 6. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the impugned Judgment. We see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.  
.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X