TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The respondents had availed proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the said Rules in respect of different final products during Mar. '86 to Feb. '87. The Department objected to this simultaneous availment of the two types of credit and accordingly issued a show cause notice proposing to dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the assessee for the purpose of their appeal before the Tribunal). The original authority allowed refund of only the pre-deposit amount. It rejected the rest of the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. This decision of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred an appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty for consideration of the claim. If they are satisfied that it pertains to the claim of refund on input credit then the claim is required to be considered in the light of the judgments noted supra. The authority shall expeditiously dispose of the matter within four months as it is a very old matter, in terms of law". 2. Pursuant to the above remand order, the original authority passed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent. If it is not so relatable, the bar of unjust enrichment will be applicable. This proposition is not in dispute. What is in dispute in this appeal is whether the refund claim could be treated as one relating to input duty credit? The appellant has submitted that Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given an independent finding on this question. 4. After considering the submissions, I fin....