2013 (5) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Shri N. Rajagopalan, learned Cons., appearing for the appellant-Public Sector Company M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., states that the claims relate to imports made in the year 1982. Initially, the imports were not allowed under the Project Import Regulation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts did not show the amounts but in later years the balance sheets indicated the amounts as 'Receivables']. He also states that the auditors of the Comptroller and Auditor General who audited the Public Sector Steel Plant have also raised objection that these amounts which are  'Receivables ' from the department have not been pursued and received so far. Apart from the above, the refund was du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no provision regarding unjust enrichment which was introduced later on in the law on 20-9-1991. Had the refunds been granted to the appellants after the Special Bench decided the matter, there would have been no question of applying the principles of unjust enrichment. In any case, we find that the appellants have submitted an affidavit that they have not passed on the extra duty burden to anyone....