2006 (7) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise is before us seeking an order to set aside the final order No. 1076 of 2005 dated 4-7- 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Zonal Bench, Bangalore. Revenue also wants the questions of law as referred to in paragraph 3 to be answered in the case on hand. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the CESTAT is legally justifie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited, Chitradurga is fully owned by the State Government. They manufacture food products. Food products manufactured by the assessee are supplied to various Departments of Government like Child Development project office, Juvenile Service Bureau, etc. However, at the time of clearing the goods to various Departments of the State Government, the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. Tribunal ordered refund in favour of the assessee. It is in these circumstances, Revenue is before us by raising questions of law as stated above. 3. Shri C. Shashikantha, learned counsel for the Revenue would say that the Tribunal is wrong in allowing the appeal on the ground of no unjust enrichment. According to him, the Company stands on a differe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8) 111 STC 467. This is what the apex court has to say at page 547 reading as follows: "The doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine. No person can seek to collect the duty from both ends. In other words, he cannot collect the duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that it has been collected from him contrary to law. T....