Case Law Details
Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs Commissioner of CGST (CESTAT Delhi)
Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the facts of the case as it is a case of refund of penalty paid by the appellant where he has considered that it is a case of refund of duty. As facts of the case are crystal clear that it is a case of refund of penalty and for refund of penalty there is no such provisions in law where the appellant is required to establish that they have to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. In such circumstances, following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Be Office Automation Pvt Ltd., Anand Silk Mills vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva, Ratan Udyog vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc & Export), Mumbai, I hold that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of penalty paid by the appellant has been rejected by the authorities below on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
