9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim of Rs. 14,00,341/- on excess payment of differential duty. Original authority sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 1,33,219/- which was to be credited in their Cenvat Credit account and the balance amount of Rs. 12,67,122/- was rejected on the ground of time barred. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against refund of Rs. 1,33,219/-. The respondents also filed appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 12,67,122/-. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 209-210-CE/BPL/2004 dated 31-3-2004 set aside the adjudication order and allowed the refund claim of Rs. 12,67,122.00. Further, by the impugned order dated 17-8-2004 which is the subject matter of the present appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. 44 which has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangam Processors reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (Tri.) held that even though subsequently credit note have been issued would satisfy the principle of Unjust Enrichment. 6. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed any order in respect of amount, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. It is his submission that they have filed appeal against the rejection of balance amount of refund, which have already been decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal dated 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable. Regarding unjust enrichment, finding of the original authority is as under:- As regards question of unjust enrichment, I find that the Oil Companies have deducted the amount paid in excess by them from subsequent bills. The documents submitted before me prove that incidence of duty has been borne by the party and has not been passed on to any other person. In view of above, I pass the following order. 8. The submission of the learned D.R. in respect of unjust enrichment cannot be accepted for the reason that the original authority allowed the refund claim after verification of the evidences which were not disputed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The contention of the learned D.R. is that the assessment was not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
