9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent Per: Raju Appellant filed refund claim of SAD paid at the time of clearance of consignment through debit of DEPB licence. The said refund claim was examined and rejected solely on the ground of unjust enrichment. Appellants agitated the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed appeal on following grounds. "From the balance sheet of the financial year 2007-08 it is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . counsel for the appellant argued that in their own case involving identical issue. Tribunal has already granted relief vide order no. A/86042 86043/16/CB dated 16.02.2016. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We find that Tribunal in appellant's own case vide order dated 16.02.2016 has granted relief. In the said order following has been observed as follow:- "7.1 In the Revenue's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of non-passing of the incidence of duty. It is also undisputed that in the revised balance sheet the amount of refund claim is indicated as amount receivable which would indicate that the appellant had paid the entire amount from their pocket on which refund is claimed. The adjudicating authority was correct in coming to conclusion that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt as in the case of Turakhia Ferromet Pvt. Ltd (supra). We find the adjudicating authority held against the assessee hence the Tribunal remitted the case back to the adjudicating authority, while in the case in hand the adjudicating authority held in favour of the appellant based upon the documents produced before him, distinguishable." 5. Since in the appeal's own case relief has been granted; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
