9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides. 2. The appellant filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected as time-barred. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of copper cathodes and filed bills of entry declaring the value of the goods. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Revenue and the same was enhanced and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. The Deputy Commissioner (Refund) sanctioned the refund claims. The Revenue challenged the orders whereby refund claims were sanctioned. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order accepted the appeal of the Revenue and held that the refunds are time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that as the refund claims are being rejected as time-barred, therefore, he is not going to the aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the appellant had lodged a protest against confirmed demand of differential duty on the basis of enhanced value of the imported goods. The contention is that as the refund claim was a consequential relief, therefore, the Commissioner s order that refund claims are time-barred is not sustainable. The contention of the appellant is that refund was erroneous the refund notice was issued w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue declared by them was enhanced, therefore, by filing appeal the appellant lodged a protest against the assessment order. The refund claims were filed within six months from the date of order-in-appeal, therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that refund claims are time-barred are not sustainable and set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) have not gone into the issue of unjust enrichment as r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
