9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deny the substantive benefit without discussing whether the substantive benefit was otherwise actually available. The original adjudicating authority had not discussed that issue on merits. Therefore Revenue’s contention that if at all, the issue should have been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merit before coming to a finding about admissibility of refund or he should have remanded the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 186/BPL/2008 dated 1.12.2008 in terms of which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim of ₹ 1,47,900/- to the appellants setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 1/ST/AC/REFUND/SGR/2008 dated 26.8.2008 which rejected the appellants refund claim mainly on account of unjust enrichment and also stating that apart from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he procedural violations are not sufficient for denying the substantial claim instead of holding the refund admissible without a proper examination. In the memorandum of cross-objections the appellants have essentially argued that they had submitted a Chartered Accountants certificate that they did not pass on the burden and therefore the unjust enrichment is not applicable in their case. 3. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merit has sustainable force. As regards unjust enrichment, we find that Revenue has clearly and documentarily brought out as to how the impugned amount has been taken into account as expenses in their accounts which by necessary implication means that the burden has been passed on to the customers. In the wake of such documentary evidence to the contrary, the CA certificate is an inadequate count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
