2009 (6) TMI 530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....initiated against them. During the pendency of the classification of the said product, "Crane brand Betel Nut Powder", the respondent had paid the duty under protest on the said products, cleared earlier. Consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their favour in Civil Appeal No. 1453/2007 dated 19-3-2007, respondent filed an application for the refund of such amount. The said refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground of doctrine of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after narrating the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the entire amount was paid by them during the period 23-2-2006 to 6-1-2007, by various challans 'under protest'. He would submit that the demand of duty was for the goods allegedly cleared during the period 11-5-2004 to 31-3-2005. He would submit that in an identical issue, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-I v. Modi Oil & General Mills - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P&H) has held that if duty is paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,00,000 3 31-10-2006 14. 2/2005-06 18-10-2006 3,00,000 3 31-10-2006 15. 3/2005-06 6-11-2006 3,00,000 7 30-11-2006 16. 4/2005-06 23-11-2006 3,00,000 7 30-11-2006 17. 5/2005-06 30-11-2006 3,00,000 7 30-11-2006 18. 6/2005-06 18-12-2006 5,00,000 9 18-12-2006 19. 7/2005-06 28-12-2006 5,00,000 11 28-12-2006 20. 8/2005-06 6-1-2007 5,00,000 13 6-1-2007     Total 1,26,00,000     5.1 It can be seen that the said amount has been paid 'under protest' subsequent to the clearances of the goods which were considered by the Revenue as excisable. We find that the judgment and order of t....