https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84683 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that in cases of captive use of goods, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The lower authorities were directed to provide consequential relief to the Appellants promptly. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's arguments, citing various High Court judgments and distinguishing a Supreme Court case, ultimately dismissing the Reference Application. The Stay Petition filed by the Revenue was also rejected in light of the dismissal of the Reference Application, emphasizing the significance of legal precedent in resolving Central Excise disputes. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:28:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84683 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that in cases of captive use of goods, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The lower authorities were directed to provide consequential relief to the Appellants promptly. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's arguments, citing various High Court judgments and distinguishing a Supreme Court case, ultimately dismissing the Reference Application. The Stay Petition filed by the Revenue was also rejected in light of the dismissal of the Reference Application, emphasizing the significance of legal precedent in resolving Central Excise disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84683