9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd party and after recording that this certificate has not been supported by any corroborative evidence rejected the refund claim as unsubstantiated. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also similarly rejected the refund claim. We wish to record here that ground of unjust enrichment cannot be a ground for rejecting a refund claim. The question of unjust enrichment comes into play only after when it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER None appeared for the appellant. The appellant vide their letter dated 13-5-2013 has requested the Tribunal to decide the case on its merits. Accordingly, we have taken up the appeal for disposal. Heard the learned AR appearing for the Revenue. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant imported consignments of tyres, flaps and tubes used in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecording the above, the lower adjudicating authority, however rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who found that the appellant has not produced any evidence to show that duty incidence has not been passed on to other consumers and the certificate issued by the External Auditor is not sufficient in itself unless it is backed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh to record here that ground of unjust enrichment cannot be a ground for rejecting a refund claim. The question of unjust enrichment comes into play only after when it is decided whether refund is sanctionable or otherwise. We find that both the lower authorities have not given findings whether the refund is sanctionable or otherwise and straightway rejected the refund claim on the ground of unju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
