TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of re-demption fine. 2. Appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT, for short) were decided vide order dated 13th March, 1992. It was directed that the value declared by the petitioner should be accepted. Dispute about the classification of the goods was not decided. This issue was not raised by the petitioner at the time of show cause notice or during the adjudicating proceedings before the authorities. In the final paragraph of the order dated 13th March, 1992, it was directed that the refund requisition for grant of interest @ 18% on the refund amount, if any, could not be considered by the CEGAT as there was no such provision in the statute and the CEGAT cannot grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir contention that the refund of extra duty would not result in unjust enrichment. It may be noted that the petitioner before the Deputy Collector of Customs had stated that the refund amount could be issued in favour of Sant Welfare Trust instead of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the CEGAT which was disposed of vide order dated 7th June, 1994. The said order records that the authorities had stated that the Assistant Collector of Customs vide order dated 2nd May, 1994 had inter alia rejected the claim of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment under the amended section 27 of the said Act. This order dated May, 1994 is impugned in the writ petition. The CEGAT disposed of the application vide ord....