2010 (3) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... led by the appellant, a claim dated 17-7-1996 for Rs. 4,71,355/-, another claim dated 30-9-1996 for Rs. 2,46,936/- and a third one dated 24-10-1996 for Rs. 4,52,160/-. All the three refund claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground of non-production of original documents. In the appeal filed by the assessee against the Assistant Commissioner s order, the learned Commissioner (App .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the submission that the required documents are irrelevant to the refund claims. In this connection, he has referred to a specimen refund claim. We find that each of the claims was accompanied by only xerox copies of documents. In the covering letter for the refund claim, the party undertook to produce the original documents as and when required. Nevertheless, they failed to produce the documents .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt show-cause notice, the proposal was to reject this claim on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyer. The show-cause notice called upon the party to adduce evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment. But, in adjudication of the show-cause notice, the original authority overlooked this aspect. In the circumstances, the original authority will be required to deal w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X