9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. 25411/2013 - Dated:- 12-6-2013 - SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, J. For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that refund of Rs. 1,49,451/- is not adversely affected by provisions of unjust enrichment . 2. None is present on behalf of Respondent. Heard learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue. 3. I find that Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the appeal filed by Revenue has made the following observations :- 12. The only ground on which the appeal has been preferred by the department is that the original authority did not examine the claim with regard to the unjust en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious purchase orders. The details of the amounts paid in excess in respect of each purchase order and invoice are detailed in the said letter dt. 05.1.1999. Further, the said letter also indicates that the total amount of over payment recoverable then, from the assessee by the DOT, Ernakulam was Rs. 18,89,576/- and that out of that total amount, Rs. 16,45,174/- was adjusted against the freight bills and one supply bill, as per the details shown there under. Further the summary of adjustments against various bills shown in the said letter dt. 05.01.1999, also matches the recovery of Rs. 16,45,174/-. 16. Further, the balance amount of Rs. 2,44,402/- (Rs. 18,89,576/- - Rs. 16,45,174/-) was to be recovered as on 05.1.1999, the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue, I have perused paragraph 5 and relevant portion of paragraph 7.2 of Review Order of Commissioner which reads as follows : 5) Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the sanction of refund did not amount unjust enrichment as the burden of duty claimed as refund was borne by the assessee. To draw the above conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the bills submitted by the assessees and the letter submitted by the assessees wherein there was price variation clause and also an indication that the price variation is due to the reduction in duty on the cables in the Union Budget for 1996-97. xxx xxx xxx 7.2. From the above it is clear that the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court categorically barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
