2007 (5) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order]. -  This appeal by revenue is against the order in appeal No. 19 (19-Ahd)Cus/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 27-3-2006, which upheld the order of confiscation but at the same time , granted refund to the respondent in respect of the amount paid during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. Respondent is absent despite notice. I take up the case in the absence of the respondent as the issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is not correct and set aside the same. After confirmation of demand has been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) the respondent preferred an application for refund of the amount deposited by him with the authorities during the course of investigation. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayment of duty as has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Jayanta Glass Inds. v. C.C.E. reported in 2002 (50) RLT 98 (T). I, therefore, hold that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in respect of Rs. 3,38,907/- which has been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The same is to be paid to the appellant instead of crediting the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Howeve....