9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants herein challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court. By order and judgment dated 7th December, 2007 [2008 (222) E.L.T. 46 (P H), the Hon ble High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal in respect of appellants and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for deciding the issue on merit, after taking into consideration of various pleas raised by the appellants including the plea that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the consumers because their sale price continued to be the same which was prevailing before the grant of benefit of duty under Section 3A of the Act and also as to whether refund is time barred. In compliance of the order of the Hon ble High Court, both the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned the refund claim. He fairly submits that the present cases, may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the records in respect of unjust enrichment. 6. Regarding time bar issue, he submits that the appellants filed refund claim on 26-6-2000 which was subsequently returned back by the authorities and various correspondences were took place. He further submits that ultimately they again filed the refund claim in the month of September, 2003 at the instance of Central Excise officers. He drew the attention of the Bench to the various correspondences which were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. The learned DR reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise returned the refund claim as the same is incomplete. (g) The appellants vide letter dated 22-2-2001, resubmitted the refund claim to the authorities with a request to point out the defects in their application. (h) Further by letter dated 9-4-2001, the Superintendent of Central Excise returned the refund application as there is no change in the annual capacity determination for the relevant period. (i) By letter dated 16-4-2001, the appellants again resubmitted the refund application wherein the details of galleries were given. (j) Again the Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 4th May, 2001, returned the refund claim with the directions that the same may be filed after obtaining neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
