9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against order-in-appeal no. 79/2006/MCH/DC/Contract Cell/06 dated 24.02.2006 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudicating authority's order sanctioning refund of duty. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents imported 2 nos. of Washing and Siliconizing Machines under Project Import vide Bill of Entry no. 7141 dated 26.07.1991. However, the Contract Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. Consequently, the respondent claimed the refund of Rs.13,09,506/- which was sanctioned by the lower adjudicating authority vide order dated 05.01.2005. The Revenue challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the lower authority has not applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after considering the facts upheld the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs and whether the amount of refund was covered under the amount of Rs.4,91,00,000/- lakhs. 5. The respondent filed counter styled as Cross Objection wherein they have contended that the duty amount involved in this case was recovered by the department consequent to Dy. Commissioner order dated 22 January 2002 by encashing bank guarantee of Rs.13,09,506/-. The respondent further submitted cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has not shown the breakup of Rs.496.0 lakhs and has also not shown that the said amount covered the amount of Rs.13,09,506/- which was to be refunded. Firstly I find that all these aspects have been taken into consideration by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. Secondly, the amount of Rs.496.0 lakhs can undoubtedly cover an amount of Rs.13,09,506/- lakhs. If the department ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
