2017 (12) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal. The present proceedings emanate from the remand instructions passed in Final Order No. 56/2009-Ex dated 16.1.2009 whereby the Hon'ble Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the issue afresh in light of decision of Rajasthan High Court in UOI vs. AK Spintex Ltd. [2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj) on the issue of unjust enrichment. 3. The appellant was a job worker, clearing fabrics received from the supplier after processing it. The appellant discharged appropriate duty on processed fabrics, i.e., duty paid on value of raw material plus processing charges. Dispute arose between 1984 to 1990 between the Appellant and the Department regarding the value to be adopted by Appellant for duty payment. To comply....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t higher rate had been made by the Notice under protest and such differential duty had been recovered by the Appellant from the buyers. However, vide respective agreement with the buyers, it had been agreed that the Appellant shall continue to contest the issue with the Department, and in case the issue is decided in favour of the Appellant, and such excess duty paid is refunded, the said amount shall be paid back to the respective buyers after reducing the legal expenses incurred. Thus, even if such amounts had been recovered from the buyers this fact will not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was unjust enrichment, since such buyers were legally entitled to the refund claim of excess duty paid by the Appellant, in light of ....