2005 (9) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (in short "CEGAT") dated 29th March, 2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants have been denied refund on the ground that there would be unjust enrichment. The law regarding unjust enrichment is settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). 3. The period for which refund is claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d instituted for that purpose. 4. It is submitted that the claim for refund is based upon Notification No. 198/76-C.E., dated 16th June, 1976. It is submitted that under this Notification the benefit could only become available at the end of the year as it had to be worked out as to what was the base clearances and the excess clearances. It was also submitted that during that period Rule 173(I) d....