9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue against the order in appeal dated 23rd October, 2003 wherein the refund claim of the Respondent was allowed. 2. Relevant facts which arise for consideration are that the Respondents preferred a refund claim to the adjudicating authority for refund of the excess customs duty paid by them by mistake on the goods, which were used in their own factory. The Respondent s claim was rejected by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pite notice. 5. Heard the learned DR, perused the records. I find that the Respondent s refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority in his order dated 19-8-95 on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. The said order dt. 19-8-95 has relied upon provisions of the Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 for the point of unjust enrichment, while the show cause notice is issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have preferred an appeal. The department chose not to file an appeal against the order-in-appeal dt. 19-6-98; and instead of following the judicial discipline, rejected the refund claim of the Respondents second time, throwing out of window the settled law of judicial discipline as propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalakshi Finance s case as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the hands of adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority, in the absence of any appeal against the order dt. 19-6-98 was bound to follow and sanction the refund claim. Department s appeal against the current order in appeal dt. 23-10-2003 is an attempt to make a back door entry to set aside the order dated 19-6-98 of the Commissioner (Appeals). This is not a correct proposition and is aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
