9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 1-4-1991. This refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation. On an appeal filed by the appellant the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 30-12-99 set aside the order- in-original holding that limitation does not arise in the facts of this case and remanded the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re for the final product, hence unjust enrichment does not arise. 4. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that even if payment of duty is made subsequent to the clearance of final products, the appellant has to prove that the incidence of duty is not passed on. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen from the records that there was demand of duty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before me is squarely covered by the exemption notification issued under Section 11C. It is an admitted fact that the appellants had cleared the final product manufactured out of these intermediate products, on payment of appropriate duty. Revenue's case that unjust enrichment is applicable in these case is without basis, as central Government would not have issued the exemption Notification, und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date. This has been held to be sufficient to replace the presumption raised under Section 12B of the Act. Therefore, we find that no question of law warranting admission of this matter would arise and accordingly the application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Accordingly, in facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order to the extent to which it orders to credit the refund amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
