9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed of an appeal preferred by the assessee against the adjudication order dt. 30/06/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad 'G' Division bearing reference No.6/2011. The impugned order concluded that the refund claim for Rs. 64,08,609/- presented by the assessee is hit by the principle of unjust enrichment; that though the refund claim for Rs. 43,95,928/- was admissible on merits in terms of the appellate order No.6/2009 dt. 27/02/2009 and the said amount ought to be sanctioned, the same is however liable to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order further concluded that the refund claim, to the extent of Rs. 20,15,500/- sanctioned t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had not recovered excise duty and therefore unjust enrichment would not arise. This show-cause notice alleged that though the assessee had not directly passed on the burden (of excise duty), its claim for refund would still hit by the principles of unjust enrichment, for reasons alleged in the show-cause notice. These proceedings culminated in the order dt. 30/06/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad G Division who rejected in toto the refund claim for Rs. 64,08,609/-, on the ground that the issue of unjust enrichment should be reexamined after detailed verification of the assessee's books of accounts and balance sheet. 6. In the meanwhile an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uires to be noticed that against the order of the appellate Commissioner dt. 16/12/2009, the assessee also preferred an appeal No.E/1017/2010 which is pending before this Tribunal. 10. The present stay application is filed on the basis of the apprehension that the refund of Rs. 20,15,500/- which was sanctioned to the appellant, could be recovered by Revenue now in view of the order impugned herein. 11. In the light of the multiple proceedings and appeals preferred by Revenue after the order of the appellate Commissioner dt. 16/12/2009 had attained finality and since there is a serious issue for consideration whether the impugned order is sustainable on the point of jurisdiction, we direct the respondent not to initiate any proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
