2026 (1) TMI 387

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Assistant Commissioner to the extent that it has denied interest accruing on the amount of refund sanctioned that was deposited in the bank. 2. It transpires from the records that the claim of the appellant for payment of reduced duty in terms of the Notification dated 01.03.1987 was denied by the department as a result of which the appellant paid the duty under protest. This issue was ultimately decided in favour of the appellant and it was held that the appellant would be entitled to claim benefit of this Notification. 3. Consequently, the appellant filed a claim for refund of the duty that had been deposited under protest. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 20.12.1994, sanctioned the refund claim of Rs.9,70,25....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner held that it cannot be sanctioned in favour of the appellant since it was hit by unjust enrichment and, accordingly, ordered that it shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 7. This order of the Commissioner was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal by filing Excise Appeal No. 58922 of 2013. Before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the earlier order dated 20.12.1994 passed by the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning refund was reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners for filing an appeal before the Tribunal and against the said review order, the appellant had filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5357 of 2004 before the Rajasthan High Court in which a stay was granted on 0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at sanctioned the refund amount but directed it to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund but the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was decided on 05.12.2002 against which the department had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which had directed the matter to be considered afresh by the Commissioner for examining whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment would apply. Learned Authorized Representative also pointed out that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Commissioner decided the issue on 30.04.2013, against which the appellant had filed Excise Appeal No. 58922 of 2013 which was disposed on 26.10.2016 granting liberty to the appellant to come again after the matter was decided by the High Court. ....