https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212669 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. It was determined that the amount paid was a deposit and not duty, exempting it from the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Legal precedents supported the view that deposits made before appropriation by the department are not subject to unjust enrichment principles. The Tribunal distinguished a Supreme Court case cited by the department, leading to a favorable decision for the appellant and granting the appeal with any consequential relief. en-us Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212669 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. It was determined that the amount paid was a deposit and not duty, exempting it from the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Legal precedents supported the view that deposits made before appropriation by the department are not subject to unjust enrichment principles. The Tribunal distinguished a Supreme Court case cited by the department, leading to a favorable decision for the appellant and granting the appeal with any consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212669