TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entative, for the respondent [Order per S.S. Kang Vice President] - Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby refund claim of the appeal was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Contention of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund but the same was credited to the consumer welfare fund on the ground that refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal in the following decisions has held that once the amount is shown as recoverable from the department in the balance sheet, then refund of such amounts cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment:- (i) CCE Vs. N.G. Thakkar & Sons - 2004 (166) ELT 115; (ii) Jaipur Syntex Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2002 (143) ELT 605; (iii) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... International Ltd., reported in 2005 (188) ELT A81 (S.C.) to submit that the view taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that the amount deposited by the assessee is to be treated as 'deposit' and not 'duty' is not correct. Contention of the revenue is also that onus is on the appellants to show that burden of duty has not been passed on. 5. We find that in this case admitted fact is tha....