2011 (7) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tation. The respondent herein filed an application for refund of the duty paid on the ground that the benefit of exemption Notification No.515/86-Cus. dated 30.12.1986 is available to them. In the first round of litigation, Tribunal directed the lower authorities to reconsider the issue afresh. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of Rs.1,23,316/- and sanctioned the refund claim of Rs.1,02,97,842/- but credited the said amount to the Welfare Fund on the ground that the respondents has not passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by such an order respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order-in-original by recording as under:-   It is seen that M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Cor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund claim he would rely upon the following judgment :   a) Ship Gravures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad [2006 (206) E.L.T. 203 (Tri.-Delhi)]   b) Oswal Wooler Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2006 (205) E.L.T. 207 (Tri.- Delhi)]   c) Wool Worth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs. (Port). Kolkata [2006 (205) E.L.T. 206 (Tri.- Kolkata)]   d) SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (193) ELT 186 (Tri.LB)]   e) UOI Vs. Solar Prsticides Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (SC)]   It is his further submission that the first appellate authority has only held that the respondent being PSU had no control over pricing of his product is not borne out from evid....