https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34515 The tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply as the deposit was related to subsequent clearances of goods and Cenvat credit on inputs. The tribunal noted that a portion of the deposit had already been refunded without objection. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed lower authorities to allow the refund of the disputed amount, highlighting the procedural and substantive aspects of the refund claim rejection and the final decision based on specific circumstances and legal precedents. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34515 The tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply as the deposit was related to subsequent clearances of goods and Cenvat credit on inputs. The tribunal noted that a portion of the deposit had already been refunded without objection. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed lower authorities to allow the refund of the disputed amount, highlighting the procedural and substantive aspects of the refund claim rejection and the final decision based on specific circumstances and legal precedents. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34515