2017 (2) TMI 714

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... questions of law on which this Appeal is admitted would require a remand of this case back to the Tribunal. 2. The Appeal has been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct to hold in Appeal No. E/4020R/99 that, unjust enrichment is applicable, in a case where, duty paid on yarn captively used was available as credit of Modvat and hence such credit is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, in view of its coverage under clause (c) to first proviso to subsection (2) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and in a case where the Revenue in its Appeal had not challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s OrderinAppeal dated 28.3.2002 (at Exhibit' J&#....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the appellants point out is receipt of Show Cause Notices arising out of these refund claims. The Department was of the opinion that the claims could be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 5. The initial Orders were passed rejecting the two Refund Applications. Against the two Orders-in-Original, dated 14.9.1998 and 30.10.1998, two Appeals were filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority was of the opinion that certain clarifications will have to be made and they are not to be found in the impugned Orders and hence restored the refund claim and for reconsideration by the Competent Authority. However, the Revenue was aggrieved by this direction of the First Appellate Authority and it approached t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been rejected on 21.2.2005. 7. Against the above two Orders, the present Appeal is filed by the assessee. 8. We have found from a reading of the Tribunal's Order and it is difficult to make out as to what prevailed upon the Tribunal to pass a cryptic order and by holding that there is substance in the Departmental objection on the point of limitation. 9. The Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment can be invoked but that aspect was not elaborated further. Midway the Tribunal holds that there is substance in the Department's objection on the point of limitation and therefore concentrated its entire attention towards that point. In dealing with that also, in subparas (ii) to (d) of para 5, the Tribunal comm....