2015 (9) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ificate of Chartered Accountant and details of balance sheet found that claim of refund as granted by original authority requires no interference – In that view of matter, proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) were limited only for examination of issue as to whether case of unjust enrichment on basis of material placed on record – Present appeal only arises out of concurrent finding of fact as recorded by three authorities and as such no substantial question of law arises – Thus, Appeal rejected – Decide against revenue.
B.R. Gavai and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sujay Kantawala a/w Ms. Brijesh Pathak, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant Revenue has approached this Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment against them. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its order dated 29-4-2005 set aside the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and referred the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision only for decision on the issue of unjust enrichment, after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents herein and to pass fresh order after hearing the parties afresh. Vide order dated 19-10-2005, the original authority Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of assessee and rejected the departmental appeal. 4. Being aggrieved thereby the appeal is preferred before the CESTAT. The CESTAT on 24-12-20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kes out a case and remanded for fresh decision on the issue of unjust enrichment after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents and to pass fresh order after hearing the parties afresh. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 19-10-2005 on the basis of the certificate of Chartered Accountant and the details of balance sheet found that the claim of refund as granted by the original authority requires no interference. The same has been upheld by the learned CESTAT. The learned CESTAT had restricted the issue for determination regarding unjust enrichment after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents. The same was not challenged by the department and the Revenue submitted to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X