9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent against the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported 2504.734 MT of cumene in bulk from USA vide Bill of Entry 20339 dated 6.3.2003 which was provisionally assessed and the goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty of custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the appellants are well within their rights to file refund claim. On review, the department filed an appeal before CESTAT on the ground that the claimant is not entitled to refund for the reason that they have not challenged the assessment order. The CESTAT vide order dated 13.2.2006 dismissed the stay as well as appeal of the department for want of COD clearance. Consequent to the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CCE, Bangalore vs. Karnataka State Agro Corporation Ltd. reported in 2006 (202) ELT 47 (Kar.), the Hon'ble High Court held that the State Undertaking cannot be brought under the bar of unjust enrichment and moreover, the appellants also submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate to the effect that the duty has not been passed on to the customers. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust enrichment is not applicable because the provisional assessment was completed before 14.7.2006 and moreover, the assessee is a public sector undertaking and by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the Commissioner (A) has come to the conclusion that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. Moreover, I also find that the assessee has also produced the cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
