9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) passed the order in 2004 - Held that:- In this case the only reason for denial of the refund claim is that these capital goods were not in the possession of the appellant in 2004. It is admitted fact that these capital goods were procured in 1989 and if the formula of depreciation is adopted by the department is applied to these capital goods, the life of the capital goods is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, DC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the premise that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The appellant procured one computer equipment with software in the year 1989 claiming the exemption under Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld but refund claim was rejected on the premise that these capital goods are not in the possession of the appellant at the time when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order in 2004, therefore bar of unjust enrichment is applicable. Aggrieved from the same order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. counsel for the appellant submits that as these capital goods were imported in the year 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her hand. ld. AR reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case the only reason for denial of the refund claim is that these capital goods were not in the possession of the appellant in 2004. It is admitted fact that these capital goods were procured in 1989 and if the formula of depreciation is adopted by the department is appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
