2007 (6) TMI 450

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR, for the Appellant. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply to amounts paid by way of pre-deposit, and thus sanctioning the refund of Rs. 2,72,532.59 to the respondents. There is no dispute that the claim is admissible on merits in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....C.), CCE v. Parle International Ltd. 2005 (188) E.L.T. A81 (S.C.) and the earlier decision of the apex court in UOI v. Jain Spinners Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). These decisions have been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Pride Foramer v. CC, Mumbai 2006 (200) E.L.T. 259 in which the appellants satisfied the Tribunal that duty burden was not passed on and therefore, the assessees wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pre-deposit. 4. Following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in Jain Spinners Ltd. and Parle International Ltd. and the Tribunal's order in Pride Former cited supra, I accept the contention of the Revenue that the present claim for refund is also required to be tested on the anvil of unjust enrichment. Since the claim requires to be examined from this angle, I set aside th....