9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value and preferring an appeal was payment of duty 'under protest' and that since the assessee succeeded in the litigation, the question of time bar did not arise. In view of the decision in the case of the appellants themselves, the rejection of refund claim on ground of limitation cannot be sustained. The issue of unjust enrichment as sought to be raised by the Department has to be dealt with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) re-fixed the price at US $ 75 per piece. On further appeal by the party before the Tribunal, the original price of US $ 61 per piece stands accepted vide Final Order No. 22 23/2008 dated 2/1/2008 (one more appeal of the party on identical situation was disposed vide order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the Tribunal). 3.2 On the basis of Tribunal's order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by the again on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation as the same was filed on 13.10.2008 after receipt of the Tribunal order dated 2.1.2008. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority by impugned order dated 13.7.2009. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant-assessee submits that on identical facts, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee by a common order of the Tribunal dated 2.1.2008. In respect of one claim arising out of one of the Bills of Entry, the Tribunal in appeal arising out of refund proceedings vide order dated 22.10.2010 held that the discharge of customs duty liability on the enhanced value and preferring an appeal was payment of duty 'under protest' and that since the assessee succeeded in the litigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
