https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86451 Refund of central excise duty was not erroneous merely because Modvat credit adjustments were made in computing the claim, as Rule 57E permitted corresponding credit variation and the claim had already been reduced to reflect amounts linked to buyers' credit. The appellate order was unsustainable because it identified no statutory prohibition or legal basis for rejecting the refund. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar the claim, since the amended Section 11B regime applied only to pending claims and this refund had already been sanctioned and part-paid before the amendment came into force. The refund sanction was therefore restored in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 12 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:22:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86451 Refund of central excise duty was not erroneous merely because Modvat credit adjustments were made in computing the claim, as Rule 57E permitted corresponding credit variation and the claim had already been reduced to reflect amounts linked to buyers' credit. The appellate order was unsustainable because it identified no statutory prohibition or legal basis for rejecting the refund. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar the claim, since the amended Section 11B regime applied only to pending claims and this refund had already been sanctioned and part-paid before the amendment came into force. The refund sanction was therefore restored in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86451