2007 (7) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. [Order]- This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/120/2006 dated 24-4-2006. 2. Considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the allowance of respondent's appeal against the order-in-original in respect of the refund claim. It is the contention of the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submissions made by the appellants. In the instant case, the issue for consideration is whether the refund of Rs. 2,42,117/- is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned refund claim for Rs. 5,64,093/- and out of the said amount ordered to credit the amount of Rs.2,42,117/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellants have not established that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have relied upon following case laws - (i) Parle International v. UOI - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.), (ii) Steelco Gujarat Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 67 (T) and (iii) Killick Caribonium v. UOI - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 491 (Bom.). I find that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pane International (supra) has held that amount deposited by petitioner during adjudicating proceedings is to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Modi Oil & General Mills as reported at 2007 (210) E.L.T. 342 (P & H) has held as under: - "We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and find that no question. of law would arise warranting acceptance of prayer of the Revenue to make a reference to this Court under Section 35G of the Act. The qu....