9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs. 1,10,32,895/- was filed in respect of remaining 105 Bills of Entry. By Order-in-Original No. 562/06, dated 31-8-2006, the adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 14,60,753/- paid on account of Revenue Deposit covered against 52 out of 54 Bills of Entry; vide Order-in-Original No. 561 /06 dated 31-8-2006, the adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 1,09,48,129/- paid by the appellants on account of Revenue Deposit covered against 104 Bills of Entry. Subsequently, by issue of Corrigendum dated 25-9-2006, the refund amount of Rs. 1,09,33,797/- was substituted for the earlier figure of Rs. 1,09,48,129/- for the reason that refund due against 103 Bills of Entry was only being considered. 2. Both the orders were challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nanabhoy & Co. C.As. and their reports confirm the negative margin on the product sold for the same period during which the Revenue Deposit under consideration for the refund has been sanctioned. 4. The Revenue, in its grounds of appeal before the Commissioner tour (Appeals), has raised the following points in support of their submission that the original authority has not considered all aspects while sanctioning the refunds: "(a) that the original authority has not ascertained as to whether the rights and liabilities especially those with respect to the claim of refund from Custom Authorities have been initiated by the successor private company or not; and whether or not the claimant has the right to the refund has not been ascertained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med part of the cost The Revenue's contention that the original authority has not considered any of the reports is also not correct, as we find that one of the cost audit reports was placed by the appellants themselves before the adjudicating authority and the cost audit report covers the period in which the Revenue Deposit under reference had been shown. The contention of the Revenue that the issue of unjust enrichment has not been properly examined is also not acceptable, for the reason that it in the is not disputed that the amount of Revenue Deposit has being shown as recoverable, and the bar of unjust enrichment will therefore not operate against the appellants. The issue as to whether when the amount is shown as recoverable the bar of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
