2014 (5) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AB SINGH 1. This is an appeal filed by M/s Chhata Sugar Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) against the order in appeal dated 26.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed a refund claim on the ground that they have paid the excess duty without claiming concession in terms of Notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/623/97-NB dated 5.9.97 remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority directing that Assistant Commissioner to give clear findings whether the appellants are entitled for the refund or not in terms of Notification No. 130/83 and on arrival of the conclusion, if the answer is positive, the Assistant Commissioner may examine the issue wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. Once they realized that duty on additional quota was required to be paid at lower rate, they have filed the present claim. She submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the sanction of refund on merits and their appeal has been rejected only on the ground of unjust enrichment. She submits that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the sugar rebate incentive scheme. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that doctrine of unjust enrichment can be invoked in the cases of rebate under excess production incentive scheme also. He submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeal) has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has rightly rejected the appeal of the appellant. 6. After hearing both the sides, we find ....