2005 (10) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Order per : Moheb Ali M., Member (T)]. - The issue pertains to refund of duty paid in pursuance of an order of final assessment. The respondents paid Rs. 65,05,506/- (Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) in pursuance of an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 8th September, 2005 and preferred an appeal against the said order to Commissioner (Appeals). The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;  The Commissioner erred in ordering refund of duty even when de novo proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner were pending. (b)     The Commissioner erred in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,05,506/-(Rupees Sixty-five lacs five thousand five hundred six only) paid by the respondents is in the nature of deposit under Section 35F. The said amount was paid in pursuanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me bar against the respondents. The question of unjust enrichment is irrelevant when the adjudication itself has to be done de novo in pursuance of an earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals). An application for refund can arise only after de novo proceedings are completed. 4. The entire controversy can be put in a narrow compass. The respondents paid duty in pursuance of an order of assessment ....