- (1.) This Appeal is against an order of the customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal, New Delhi (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 claimed is from 1976-1977, 1977-1978 and 1978- 1979. However, it appears that there was a dispute between the Appellants and the respondent as to how the benefit under notification No. 198/76-C. E. , dated 16th june, 1976 was to be calculated. This dispute was ultimately decided by CEGAT in favour of the Appellants. The claim for refund had then to be worked out. Pursuant to the decision of cegat, the Appellant's claims for refund were taken up for consideration in 1993. By that time Section 11-B had been amended and the doctrine of unjust enrichment had been incorporated in Section 11-B. Thus even though the Appellant's refund claims were allowed, refund was not granted to them on the ground that they had recovered amounts from their purchasers. The amounts were directed to be credited to the Fund instituted for that purpose.;