9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. The appellants claimed benefit of set-off of duty paid on Decalite (Filter aid), which was not allowed by the Adjudicating Authority but subsequently allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal. The present appeal relates to the consequent refund claim filed by the appellants for the period from June, 1984 to February, 1986. The refund claim was rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, as far as the second refund is concerned, the appeal is allowed by way of remand of verification by the Asst. Collector about the applicability of principles of unjust enrichment. 2. A reference application filed by the Revenue for referring the question of law arising in the above order was also rejected vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment enclosed to their letter dated 9-5-1987 while filing the refund claim, wherein the details of GP no. and date had been submitted. He also claimed that original documents have been submitted to the Department. We also find that in the order-in-original passed by the Asst. Collector on 23-9-1987, it has been stated that Xerox copies of gate passes were produced. However, the Asst. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Adjudicating Authority viz. unjust enrichment has been ignored by Commissioner (Appeals). Unfortunately the procedure which was not the subject matter of adjudication and appellate proceedings earlier has again become the subject matter of adjudication in appeal proceedings because during de novo adjudication the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the remand order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
