Per Archana Wadhwa :

Shri P.N. Sen, ld. consultant appearing for the appellants submits that they removed eight consignments of un-machined cast articles falling under chapter 84 to their sister concern at Hyderabad after payment of duty of Rs. 41,732.26. However, subsequently on coming to know that no duty was payable by them in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 217/85-CE dt. 8.10.85 they preferred a refund claim with their jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The authorities below rejected the said refund claim on two grounds. First that the chapter X procedure, which is one of the conditions of Notification No. 217/85-CE was not followed by them and secondly on the ground of unjust enrichment.

2. Shri Sen submits that the appellants are admitting that chapter X procedure was not followed by them, but submits that non-observance of said procedure cannot be made the basis for denial of benefit of law which otherwise is available to the assessees. For this submission he draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision reported in 2000 (37) RLT 324=2000 (117) ELT 641 (Tribunal). As regards the point of unjust enrichment he submits that their Hyderabad unit has written a le