2011 (3) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:   Briefly stated the facts of the case are that pursuant to CESTAT order No.A/2832/WZB/AHD/07 dated 20.11.07 the appellant had filed a claim for refund of Rs.1,40,58,976/- being the amount of duty excess paid at the time of assessment of bills of entry No.F-197/31.03.1998 and F-198/31.03.1998, 133/2000-01 dated 01.09.2000 due to dispute in classification of 24 use....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms of Section 27(1) of the Act ibid. After taking into consideration the documents, explanations and relevant other aspect of the matter, the adjudicating authority, vide the impugned order-in-original sanctioned the refund of Rs.1,40,58,976/- but credited the amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Act for non compliance with the obligation of doctrine of unjust enrichmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eals), who upheld the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal.   5. After hearing both the sides duly represented by learned advocate, Shri Hari Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant and Shri R. Nagar, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we find that at the time of import of the goods in March 1998, the assessment 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

.... was taken note of by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CC Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri. LB). It was concluded that the refund, which became due on final assessment, did not attract the provisions of unjust enrichment for the period prior to 13.07.06.   7. In as much as the period involved in the present appeal is of 1998, the ratio of th....