9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is order, it is not open to Commissioner (Appeals) to change it in any manner other than in respect of issue on which the appellant had filed an appeal. Thus, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which deals with period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 is set aside. The second issue arose in impugned order pertaining invocation of the clause of unjust enrichment. The issue is premature in so far as such issue arises only if refund is held to be admissible. In the instant case, both the lower authorities have found it to be inadmissible and therefore their observations regarding unjust enrichment are superfluous and are set aside. The refund can be sanctioned only when an order in terms of Section 9AA (i) is passed. I hold that refund cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to a conclusion that the Sunset review order was passed after examining data for only the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 and therefore only for that period the Anti Dumping margin is 10.27%. In view of the above, he held that refund of only for this period which has been examined by the competent authority in the review order can be considered. However, for lack of documentation and documentary evidence, the same was rejected. The matter was agitated by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue did not file any appeal against this order. 2.1 Commissioner (Appeals) held that no refund whatsoever is available to the appellant as no order in terms of Section 9AA has been passed by the competent authority. He also held that the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order. 5. I find that Order-in-Original grants partial relief to the appellant to the extent for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001, which held that the appellants are entitled to refund of the Anti Dumping subject to production of necessary documents. Since Revenue has not contested this order, it is not open to Commissioner (Appeals) to change it in any manner other than in respect of issue on which the appellant had filed an appeal. Thus, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which deals with period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 is set aside. 5.1 The second issue arose in impugned order pertaining invocation of the clause of unjust enrichment. The issue is premature in so far as such issue arises only if refund is held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) has examined this issue and observed as follows: - Secondly, appellant has claimed the refund under Section 9AA and the refund under this section can be claimed only when appellant proves to the satisfaction of the Central Government that anti dumping duty imposed under sub-section 1 of section 9A on any article in excess of the actual margin of dumping in relation to such article. Here it is a fact which is not in dispute that appellant has not proved to the satisfaction of the Central Government that they had paid excess duty that actual margin of dumping in relation to the goods imported by them as both the notifications i.e. 91/01 as well as notification 111/02 were issued under sub-section 1, 5 and 6 of section 9A w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
