9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not part of the show cause notice. Therefore, the amount retained by the Revenue is without any authority of law. Therefore the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable. The said finding has not been challenged by the Revenue and same has attained finality. The rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment is not sustainable as provisions of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund of excess amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation was allowed to be refunded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigation the respondent reversed an amount of ₹ 29,22,631/- under protest on 9-8-1996. After completion of investigation, show cause notice came to be issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to produce the evidence in regard to depreciation claimed by them. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning the refund claim has not been challenged. Therefore, the refund claim is required to be admissible. Aggrieved from the said order, revenue is in appeal before me. 3. The ld. AR submits that in this case the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, I find that in earlier round of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the excess amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation under protest is not part of the show cause notice. Therefore, the amount retained by the Revenue is without any authority of law. Therefore the provisions of Section 11B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
