9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no appeal was filed - Held that: - every refund at the time of sanction has to pass through the check of unjust enrichment - However, in the present case, the sanctioning authority had already sanctioned the refund and since the amount was payable to the respondent the same was adjusted against some confirmed demand. If this is so, then it is not open for the department that for payment of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Pune V. However, out of the above said amount ₹ 11,97,054/- was appropriated and an amount of ₹ 47,30,434/- was paid by cheque. The amount of ₹ 11,97,054/- was appropriated due to the fact that there were government dues pending against the respondent in Order-in-Original no.82/CEX/2001 dated 27.12.2001 related to an issue of classification. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court s judgement 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) in Solar Pesticides, it was observed that if the incidence of duty burden was passed on directly or indirectly, unjust enrichment is applicable. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the incidence was not passed on to the customer alone will not help the assessee. Independent evidence is required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of the ld. AR that every refund at the time of sanction has to pass through the check of unjust enrichment. However, in the present case, the sanctioning authority had already sanctioned the refund and since the amount was payable to the respondent the same was adjusted against some confirmed demand. If this is so, then it is not open for the department that for payment of refund any que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
