2010 (12) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te of Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for the appellant. Shri I. Baig, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. Per. Rakesh Kumar :- In this case three refund claims were filed by the appellant for the period from 1/4/89 to 31/8/89,1/9/89 to 31/1/90 and 1/2/90 to 5/3/90, which were sanctioned by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide orders-in-original each dated 31/10/91. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. 2. Heard both the sides. 2.1 Shri S. Yadav, Advocate, the learned Counsel representing the appellant cited the judgment of Honrable Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai  II vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. reported in 2004 (166) E.LT. 3 (S.C.) and pleaded that in terms of this judgment, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to this case. He also pleaded that in view o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tled, the refund claim, in question is not admissible. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 3.1 In view of judgment of Honrable Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. CCE & Cus. (supra), wherein it was held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to all the cases of refunds irrespective of whether....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....neous refund had been issued under Section 11A within the prescribed time limit, no recovery can be made in view of Boards Circular No. 423/56/98-CX dated 22/9/98, we find that in the review appeals filed by the Assistant Commissioner before CCE (Appeals), in pursuance of the orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there were prayers for recovery of....