TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (5) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Public. In response to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicants, the notice of hearing dated 22nd January, 1991 was sent by Registered AD Post to the applicants, listing the miscellaneous application for hearing on 5th March, 1991. Shri R.M. Ramchandani, the learned SDR had appeared on behalf of the respondents and the learned SDR had stated that he had no information in this regard whether the refund has been paid or not and the Bench had directed Shri Ramchandani, the learned SDR to get the report from the Collector and file copy thereof in the Tribunal with a copy to the other side on the next date of hearing and the matter was adjourned to 24th April, 1991. When the matter was again called on 24th April, 1991, Shri Ramchand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Lakshmi Kumaran argued that it appears that the revenue authorities are not interested in implementing the order passed by the Tribunal. During the course of the arguments, he also drew the attention of the Bench lo the fact that in the present matter, there is no unjust enrichment. The applicants had paid the amount from their small meagre resources. He further pleaded that since there is no provision of grant of interest in the Act, the applicants are suffering great losses. The applicants are to pay interest on borrowed capital and no interest is being paid on refund due amount. He also cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 (51) E.L.T. 249 (Bom.), where the Division Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt any reminder to the telex sent by the SDR to the Collector. To this, Shri Arora fairly stated that no reminder has been sent, as the time from 24th April to 9th May is a very short span. 5. Shri Lakshmi Kumaran, the learned Advocate in support of his arguments has referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Caprihans India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 249 (Bom.); paras 4,5 & 6 which are reproduced below, where the High Court has observed that it is not permissible for the authorities created under the Excise & Customs Act to deny relief of refund by resort to doctrine of unjust enrichment. "4. Shri Talyarkhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the ord....