2018 (5) TMI 1664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter in favour of the appellant. 2. The second appeal No.E/264/2009 is in respect of the refund matter of the same amount which was taken as suo motu re-credit. In this case, the issue involved is unjust enrichment. 3. Ms.Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant with regard to appeal No.E/1408/2008 submits that since the issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant taken suo moto credit in their PLA against cash payment towards the proforma credit which was finally decided in their favour by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in order or otherwise. She submits that the appellant had paid proforma credit amount in cash in compliance to the High ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om) i) Pricol Ltd. - 2015 (320) ELT 703 (Mad) j) Suvidhe Ltd. - 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom) affirmed by Supreme Court - 1997 (94) ELT A159 (SC) k) Universal Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (315) ELT 106 (Tri-Bom) l) Arviva Industries (India) Ltd. - 2011 (267) ELT 599 (Bom) m) Godrej Industries Ltd. - 2007 (213) ELT 259 (Tri-Mum) n) Rajiv Plastics Industries - 2009 (245) ELT 274 (Tri- Ahmd) o) Madura Coats Ltd. - 2014 (301) ELT 161 (SC) p) Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Ltd. - 2010 (259) ELT 522 (Guj) q) JM Baxi & Co. - 2011 (271) ELT 19 (Bom) r) Hawkins Cookers Ltd. - 2017 (6) GSTL 308 (Tri-Chan) s) Dew-Pond Engineers P Ltd. - 2017 (348) ELT 714 (T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, it is the amount of proforma credit which otherwise duty paid by the appellant, it cannot be said it is a pre-deposit. For the reason that for filing appeal in the Supreme Court no need of any pre-deposit, therefore, the amount paid by the appellant cannot be considered as predeposit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal - 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) - it is clear that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is based on equity and has been accepted and applied in several cases. In our opinion, therefore, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provisions merely given legisla....