2017 (2) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned Order-in-Appeal and period involved are as given below:- S. N APPEAL NO. OIO NO. OIA NO. PERIOD AMOUNT OF REFUND (Rs.) 1. C/586/2010 101-104/Refund/2009 dt. 16.09.2009 18-19/Cus/LKO/2010 Dt. 11.08.2010 1999-2002 3,51,08,801/- 2. C/587/2010 117-118/Refund /2009 dt. 30.09.2009     3. C/79/2010 05-13/Refund/09 dt. 28.01.2009 13-15/Cus/LKO/2009 Dt. 12.11.2009 1998-1999 8,26,56,100/- 4. C/80/2010 32-38/Refund/09 dt.31.03.2009 1999-2004 2,50,59,326/- 5. C/81/2010 47-51/Refund/09 dt. 12.05.2009 2001-2003 16,57,37,528/- 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are importers of Petroleum Crude Oil, which is used for manuf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hit by bar on unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Original Authority in all the five cases rejected appellants' claim of refund. The appellants preferred appeal  before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided such appeals through Orders-in-Appeal, details of which are stated as Para 1 above. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the Orders-in-Original and reject the appeals. Aggrieved by said Orders-in-Appeal dated 11.08.2010 & 12.11.2009, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3.  The ground of appeal is that the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable when the prices are fixed by Government and not based on the cost of manufacture of the goods. 4.  Heard Shri Chandan Ku....