https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364406 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by M/s. Kwality Silk Mills, directing the refund of Rs. 9,42,015 along with applicable interest. The Tribunal rejected the appropriation of the refund towards the Consumer Welfare Fund, ruling that the bank guarantee furnished did not constitute payment of duty, thus not falling under unjust-enrichment provisions. The appellant's claim for additional interest was denied as previous directions for interest had been fulfilled. The decision aligned with principles of unjust-enrichment and relevant case law, ensuring the appellant received the entitled refund amount with adjustments for previous transactions. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:25:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364406 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by M/s. Kwality Silk Mills, directing the refund of Rs. 9,42,015 along with applicable interest. The Tribunal rejected the appropriation of the refund towards the Consumer Welfare Fund, ruling that the bank guarantee furnished did not constitute payment of duty, thus not falling under unjust-enrichment provisions. The appellant's claim for additional interest was denied as previous directions for interest had been fulfilled. The decision aligned with principles of unjust-enrichment and relevant case law, ensuring the appellant received the entitled refund amount with adjustments for previous transactions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364406