QUE PHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred with the following principal prayers:

(2.) HEARD the learned advocate for the petitioners. The learned advocate is not in a position to dispute that during pendency of the petition, the Apex Court has already decided the issue in case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India, 1997 (89) E. L. T. 247 (S. C.) that any refund arising from any proceeding cannot be claimed by an assessee considering the principle of unjust enrichment without satisfying the requirements stated in the judgment. In the present case the petitioner is not in a position to show that the petitioner falls within the exceptions so as not to be hit by the principle of unjust enrichment.

(3.) IN the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail. Applying the ratio of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (supra), the petition is rejected. RULE discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.