2015 (12) TMI 1570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ayment of duty shall be the relevant date. Since the appellant had paid duty in the month of May, 09 and filed a refund claim in April, 2010, the claim is not barred by limitation. Grounds of unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellants have not been given opportunity to defend their case. They could not produce certificate of Chartered Accountant or any other documents before the lower authorities as they were never asked to establish their case against unjust enrichment - Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appellant. Jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear the appeal - Held that: - The appellants had paid duty on the domestic transactio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... observed that no evidence has been produced by the appellant to establish that there was no unjust enrichment. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the relevant date for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation in this case should be date of payment of duty which in the month of May, 2009 and not the date of export, which was from June, 2008 to January, 2009. He further argued that they had produced a disclaimer certificate, which was summarily rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). He also argued that they were not give due notice on the allegation of unjust enrichment and hence could not produced the evidence. They produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant at the time of hearing. 3. The learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty to defend their case. The appellant claimed that the issue of unjust enrichment could not be contested as they were never asked to produce the evidence for the same. They could not produce certificate of Chartered Accountant or any other documents before the lower authorities as they were never asked to establish their case against unjust enrichment. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside in so far as it rejects the refund on the grounds of limitation. The appellants did not get due opportunity to present their case with respect to the issue of unjust enrichment. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X