2006 (1) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. [Order]. -  On account of dispute between the appellant and the Revenue, as regards the availability of Notification No. 223/88 dated 20-6-1988, the appellant deposited the differential duty amount of Rs. 2,77,656/- vide debit in their P.L.A. during the pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Ultimately, the appeal filed before the Tribunal against ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue. 3. It has been contended before me that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the pre-deposit made after the clearance of the goods. Reliance has been made to the following case laws : (i)      Punjab Beverages v. Collector - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 506 (ii)    Industrial Cables v. Commissioner - 2002 (140) E.L.T. 543 (iii)   P....