9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO. I, NEW DELHI], where it was held that non-production of documents by the appellants will not come in their way of getting the refund of the duty. The original authority is directed to ascertain and process the claim accordingly - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1360/2010 - A/85315/17/SMB - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri D.B. Shroff, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rakesh Mandane, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent Order The dispute in this matter is limited to the specific documents that are required to be submitted for sanction of refund of balance of MODVAT credit remaining in the balance of appellant, M/s Hindoost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that original duty-paying documents were necessary for verification of eligibility for refund and that statutory records of stock receipts and disposal would not suffice for this purpose. Appeal has been filed against this particular finding in impugned order-in-appeal no. SB/34/M-IV/10 dated 20 th April 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone -I. 3. Mr DB Shroff, Senior Counsel and Mr Rakesh Mandana appearing for appellant argued that the principle of entitlement to refund of unutilised credit had been accepted by the appellate authority and that finding was not under challenge. I find that to be so. Learned Authorized Representative urged that the impugned order must be upheld as sanction of refund without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o fairly conceded this point. Following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Ltd., referred to above, we hold that non-production of documents by the appellants will not come in their way of getting the refund of the duty. We, therefore, hold that the appellants are entitled to get the refund of the duty amounting to ₹ 1,40,113.06. The remaining amount of refund claim, however, is hit by principle of unjust enrichment as admittedly the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers. We agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have been given ample opportunity to produce the evidence to counter the bar of unjust enrichment which has not been done by them. We, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department. We also find that in the order-in-original passed by the Asst. Collector on 23-9-1987, it has been stated that Xerox copies of gale passes were produced. However, the Asst. Commissioner stated that they have not produced any evidence to establish the actual quantity received by them. Therefore, the appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Assn Commissioner passed another order rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the procedure prescribed in the Notification has not been followed. This order resulted ultimately in the Tribunal 's order directing the Adjudicating Authority to sanction the refund claim. The direction related to only unjust enrichment and the procedural part was not required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
