https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50033 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the encashed bank guarantee was deemed as security for the Revenue and not payment of duty. Consequently, the refund claim by M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. was accepted, rejecting the allegation of unjust enrichment under Sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal distinguished between duty payment and security based on relevant case law, including the judgments in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Jupiter Cement Industries Ltd., ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:06:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50033 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the encashed bank guarantee was deemed as security for the Revenue and not payment of duty. Consequently, the refund claim by M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. was accepted, rejecting the allegation of unjust enrichment under Sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal distinguished between duty payment and security based on relevant case law, including the judgments in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Jupiter Cement Industries Ltd., ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50033