9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt (A.R.) ORDER PER : RAMESH NAIR This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. SB(10) 10/M-I/2011 dated 3/2/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original No. EF/REFUND/35/2010-2011(R) dated 26/10/2010, rejected the appeal of the appellant. The fact of the case is that the appellant have clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also taken support of Honble Supreme Court judgment in case of CCE Mumbai Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the order in Original by rejecting the appeal of the appellant, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri. N.S. Patel, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of C. Ex. Pondicherry Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd[2005(191) ELT 1087(Tri. Chennai)]. 3. Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that merely because the goods were sold on MRP, it cannot be said that unjust enrichment is not applicable. He placed reliance on the following judgment: (a) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority did not whisper anything about the documents submitted by the appellant. This clearly shows that no verification in respect of unjust enrichment was carried out by the Adjudicating authority. In view of the above facts, I set aside the impugned order and allow appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority. The appellant shall produce all the documents necessary to verify that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
