2017 (3) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of pressure cookers and parts thereof. The respondent filed the refund claim for different period on the ground that they have paid excess duty during the relevant period as per the final assessment order consequent to the provisional assessment having finalised. The refund claim was sanctioned and the same were re-credit in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. AR submits that as the respondent has filed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (A) has wrongly sanctioned the refund claim and as per the CBEC Circular dated 23.06.2004, the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case of provisional assessment also. 4.  On the other hand, the authorised representative appearing on behalf of the respondent reiterat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equired to be taken into consideration while deciding the issue of unjust enrichment. 7.  The Revenue has filed this appeal but they have also not produced any evidence contrary by way of verification report forwarded by the Divisional Asstt. Commissioner. As the Respondent has able to prove that the higher duty paid by them at the time of provisional assessment recovered from the buyers whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X