https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128223 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 8,55,312/- based on time bar and unjust enrichment grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported the appellant on the time bar issue, emphasizing that the deposit with the Revenue was not subject to time limits. The Tribunal distinguished between deposits made for various purposes, concluding that unjust enrichment principles did not apply to deposits made during investigation or after demand confirmation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128223 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 8,55,312/- based on time bar and unjust enrichment grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported the appellant on the time bar issue, emphasizing that the deposit with the Revenue was not subject to time limits. The Tribunal distinguished between deposits made for various purposes, concluding that unjust enrichment principles did not apply to deposits made during investigation or after demand confirmation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128223