TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for The Respondent JUDGMENT: C.N.B. Nair : The issue arising for consideration in both these appeals is whether the refund claims of the appellants are hit by the bar of Unjust enrichment. The impugned orders have held that they are, and have, accordingly, ordered that the amounts of duty collected in excess be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. It may be recalled by way of background ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#8377; 150 per metric tonne in respect of Portland cement manufactured by units commencing production of such cement on or after 1.4.1986. This rebate will be available for a period of three years from 1.3.1987. The levy quota in respect of such units is also being reduced from the existing 30% to 15%. The excise concession will be available only to those units whose aggregate production is not le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... even as claims were sanctioned, the refundable amounts have been ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Thus, the additional capital costs incurred by the appellants, inadvertently, has benefited the Welfare Fund. 4. The appellants contend that several rounds of litigation carried out by them cannot be declared a pyrrhic victory. They contest the impugned orders, including on the g....