9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1986 and provisions for unjust-enrichment were enacted in 1991 without any retrospective effect - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of the assessee. - APPEAL No.E/344/2008-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO-71051/2016 - Dated:- 27-10-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Appellant Shri Aj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited ₹ 77,40,123.52/- through TR-6 Challan No.194. Respondent vide their said letter dated 27.03.2003 requested for refund of the amount of ₹ 77,40,123.52/-. The Original Authority through Order-in-Original No.101/06 dated 14.07.2006 rejected the said refund on two grounds, 1 st ground was that respondent could not produce documentary evidences to the effect that the amount paid thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass on the incidence of duty on the customers. In view of such findings learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by said Order-in-Appeal revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The only ground of appeal filed by the revenue is that the respondent could not prove through their Balance Sheet that the duty incidence was not passed on the customers. 4. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocess of adjudication. Therefore, the principles of unjust-enrichment are not applicable to such deposit. We further observed that the amount was credited to exchequer in 1986 and provisions for unjust-enrichment were enacted in 1991 without any retrospective effect. As a result, the subject deposit was not admissible to be brought under the principles of unjust-enrichment. In view of these observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
