9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covering any amount from their buyers towards duty and the buyers have not paid any amounts to the appellant towards duty. In that circumstances, I hold that the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. In these circumstances, I direct the adjudicating authority to issue refund claim in dispute to the appellant within the 30 days of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause notice dated 04.08.2001 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim of duty of ₹ 28,28,449/- paid through Cenvat Credit. The said refund claim was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2002, on the appeal before the Id. Commissioner (A), it was held that the refund is admissible to the appellant as no proceedings to recover the Modvat Credit have been initiated by the Revenue but rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissibility of the refund to the appellant had been settled by the Ld Commissioner (A) in earlier round of litigation. As no proceedings were initiated to recover the Modvat Credit by the Revenue, the appellant is entitled for refund claim therefore, the impugned order lacks jurisdiction. It is further submitted that issue of unjust enrichment, the appellant has been able to prove that the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, we find that it is fit case for remand. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. the appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Vide order dated 27.05.2004, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has already held that the refund is admissible to the appellant as no proceedings to recover the modvat credit has been initi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
