https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94719 Questions framed on the Tribunal's power to allow re-credit, the alleged conversion of re-credit into refund, and the applicability of Section 11-B were rejected because they did not arise from the Tribunal's final order and were not determinative of the appeal. The record showed no plea before the Tribunal that re-credit would amount to a refund requiring adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Departmental Representative did not contest the point. The document also states that unjust enrichment was inapplicable where one unit of the same manufacturer was permitted re-credit of duty taken as credit by another unit, so that issue did not warrant reference to the High Court. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:32:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94719 Questions framed on the Tribunal's power to allow re-credit, the alleged conversion of re-credit into refund, and the applicability of Section 11-B were rejected because they did not arise from the Tribunal's final order and were not determinative of the appeal. The record showed no plea before the Tribunal that re-credit would amount to a refund requiring adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Departmental Representative did not contest the point. The document also states that unjust enrichment was inapplicable where one unit of the same manufacturer was permitted re-credit of duty taken as credit by another unit, so that issue did not warrant reference to the High Court. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94719