9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llan produced before this Tribunal that the amount has not been passed on and shown as recoverable amount. Thus, the appeal is allowed on merits with consequential relief to the appellants. On production of a certified copies of the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal, the concerned authority will grant refund within a period two months from the receipt of the order, with interest as per Rules. - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit. As per the order-in-original dated 29-11-2006, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs found that the amount to be non-refundable on the question of unjust enrichment. It is recorded that the documents like balance sheet along with CA s certificate show that the some amounts of the appellant is lying with the Customs department, but whether it includes the amount of ₹ 26,02,092/- paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved that the appellant has not been able to prove beyond an iota of doubt that the amount has not been passed on and accordingly rejected the appeal. 3. The appellant have demonstrated, as per their balance sheet Annexure-10 relating to loans and advances, along with deposit challan before the adjudicating authority with CA s certificate. A copy of which is filed with the paper book. On examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... just enrichment is not applicable in the case of security deposit. 4. The ld. DR for the Revenue relies on the order-in-appeal and further relies on the decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) and also in the case of Parle International Ltd. - 2005 (188) E.L.T. A81 (S.C.). 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
