https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52670 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay request because the impugned order had already been implemented and refund had been granted, making the stay application infructuous; it also found no strong prima facie case for interim relief and directed an early hearing. On the substantive point, the Tribunal held that the unjust enrichment amendment introduced in Section 27 applies only to refunds of import duty under that provision and does not extend to refunds of export duty under Section 26, which was not similarly amended. The consequence was that unjust enrichment could not be invoked to deny refund of export duty, including cess, under Section 26. en-us Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:03:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52670 The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay request because the impugned order had already been implemented and refund had been granted, making the stay application infructuous; it also found no strong prima facie case for interim relief and directed an early hearing. On the substantive point, the Tribunal held that the unjust enrichment amendment introduced in Section 27 applies only to refunds of import duty under that provision and does not extend to refunds of export duty under Section 26, which was not similarly amended. The consequence was that unjust enrichment could not be invoked to deny refund of export duty, including cess, under Section 26. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52670