9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order. Therefore, on the issue relating to unjust enrichment both sides fairly agree that the said issue needs to be remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Customs Appeal No.168 of 2010-SM - A/11383/2017 - Dated:- 14-7-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Anand Nainawati, Advocate for the Appellants Shri S.N. Gohil, A.R. for the respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 06/Commr(A)/JMN/2010 dated 18.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Jamnagar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are regular importer of coal for use in the manufacture of cement an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Therefore, the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that they would not be eligible to refund when they had not challenged the said Bills of Entry, is incorrect and in view of principle of law laid down by this Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C., Jamnagar - 2013 (297) ELT 365 (Tri-Ahmd.). 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue vehemently argues that the appellants were aware of the fact about finalization of assessment of the 20 Bills of Entry also since they were communicated through a letter dated 19.7.2006 about finalization of the Bills of Entry No. F-46/05-06 dated 14.2.2006 and No.F-50/05-06 dated 27.2.006 respectively. It is his contention that the appellants had not challenged the assessment, therefore, seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (supra) . Therefore, finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the refund claim against 20 Bills of Entry on the ground that the same were not challenged by filing appeal, accordingly set aside. However, I find that even though the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding on the issue of unjust enrichment, which though specifically assailed by the appellants before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), however, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt the said issue in the impugned order. Therefore, on the issue relating to unjust enrichment both sides fairly agree that the said issue needs to be remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to record a finding in this regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
