Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claims arising from the special clearance and return procedure for kerosene were barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and were therefore liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Analysis: The refund claims were made under a specific scheme framed pursuant to the notifications governing supply of kerosene and return of unconsumed quantity, with the Commissioner prescribing the procedure for monthly reconciliation and adjustment. The evidence showed that the differential duty and any refund-related adjustment were carried through book entries between the appellant and the buyer, and this factual position was not disputed. The subsequent issuance of credit notes was held to be consistent with the special procedure and could not be disregarded merely because the reimbursement followed the original clearance. The statutory bar against payment to the applicant under Section 11B did not apply in the same manner in view of the specific notification-based scheme and the nature of the input usage and adjustment mechanism.
Conclusion: The refund claims were not hit by unjust enrichment, and crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was held to be unjustified.