2004 (9) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal has been filed against the order of Commissioner of Appeals dated 29th August, 2003. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 35,129.00 for excess payment of duty during the period 1st April, 2000 to 31st October, 2000 in Central Excise Divn., Dhanbad on the ground that their customer M/s. BCCL,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri S.C. Mohanty, Advocate for Appellant and Shri N.K. Mishra, JDR for Respondent. Mr. Mohanty submits that in an identical matter in the appellant's own case in respect of its Talcher unit, this Bench relying upon the decision in the case of Telephone Cables [2003 (154) E.L.T. 237 (T) = 2003 (54) RLT 254 (CEGAT-Delhi)] held vide their Order No. A-75/Kol/2003, dated 29th Jan., 2001 passed a bill N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 (153) E.L.T. 694 (T-LB) = 2003 (55) RLT 397 (CEGAT-LB) has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable even if credit note representing the Excise Duty amount has been issued to buyer subsequent to clearance. He submits that the similar view has been expressed by the Larger Bench in the case of S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (T-LB) = 2003 (55) RLT 399 (....