1999 (9) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. These are two appeals involving the same issue of rejection of refund claim on account of unjust enrichment and as such are being disposed of by one common order. 2. Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant, submitted that the adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants on the ground of unjust enrichment without first deciding t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ictional Asstt. Commissioner for physical verification, whether the incidence of duty was shifted by the appellants. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Asstt. Commissioner has to give his finding about the admissibility of the refund claim as refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The ground of unjust enrichment comes into play to decide whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y without cover of gate pass which will also indicate the amount of duty paid. We, therefore, remand both these matters to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner for examining the admissibility of the refund claim and if the refund claim are admissible, examine the evidence produced by the appellants whether the incidence of duty has been passed to the customers and then pass speaking order after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X