1991 (8) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mehta waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 2. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether there is any justification for the respondents not to implement the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) on October 4, 1988. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as that the grant of refund would result into unjust enrichment and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Limited, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.), the petitioners are not entitled to any refund. The petitioners resisted the appeal by pointing out that the decision in the case of M/s. Roplas (India) Limited is no longer a good law and a catena of decisions have been d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the filing of the present petition and the petitioners seek relief of implementation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. In answer to the petition, return has been filed by Shri V.S. Bhosale, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the only plea raised is the application of principle of unjust enrichment. There is no merit whatsoever in this plea. It has been repeatedly pointed out....