2008 (8) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. None, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Common issue involved in both the appeals and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby Adjudication Orders were set aside and refund claims were allowed. 2. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trine of unjust enrichment. 4. It is contended by the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not taken into consideration the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors v. CCE reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (CEGAT) upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held that even if the credit notes are issued, doctrine of unjust enrichment is ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period for supply @ Rs. 13,282/- PMT and that the appellants have paid back the excess amount and excess duty to M/s. CIL. Hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority allowing the refund to the appellants appears to be in order and is also in conformity with the precedent decisions of the Tribunal cited by him. Hence, the same requires no interference. 2. Accordingly....