2008 (7) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll correct - matter remanded to the Original Authority to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment.
Shri T.K. Jayaraman, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri M.G. Varadarajan and S. Raghu, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 648/2006-Cus., dated 1-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Custo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay that the appellants had not challenged the assessment, even when the first test result against them, they paid the duty only under protest and also asked for retest. If this is not challenging the assessment, then what else is it? He further invited to the judgment of the decision of Chennai Bench rendered in the case of Styleman v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 559 (Tri.-Chennai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acts show that right from the beginning the appellants resisted the stand of the department. This is actually a challenge to the assessment carried out by the department. Hence, rejection of the refund claim on the ground that the assessment order was not challenged is not at all correct. An identical situation was examined in the decision of Chennai Bench cited supra. In my view, the appellant is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X