2008 (2) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een filed by the Revenue.  2.  Heard both sides and perused the records.  3.  The brief facts of the case are that M/s. KRBL Ltd., 5190, Lahore Gate, Delhi - 110 006 (the respondents herein) have submitted a refund claim for the refund of duty, which has been levied twice on the same goods. 4.  The respondents filed the B/E No. 720870 dated 15.10.2004 for the Impo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y amount in amended B.E. (for eight containers) works out to Rs.2,80,376/-.  Whereas the duty amount on earlier B/E with ten containers (210 MTs) was Rs. 3,50,470/-, which was paid on 18.10.2004.  The difference of the two comes to Rs.70,094/-, which is the refund amount, claimed by the respondents vide their application dt. 27.01.2005. 6.  Since this was the case of double payme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner and rejected the appeal.  Hence this appeal by the Revenue. 7.  I have examined the position.  The short landing of the two containers is an admitted fact on record.  Therefore, it cannot be denied that the amount pertains to the duty paid for the goods that did not exist at the relevant time.  Since there ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dal vs. CCE 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) lay general guidelines in respect of the doctrine of unjust enrichment which in fact have been followed in this case.  The case law in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and is required to be followed.  Further, I find that the respondents submitted a file before the Commission....