9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment and is entitled to refund claim in question. Whether the appellant was required to opt for provisional assessment or not? - Held that: - the appellant has approached for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the financial year 2005-06, the said request was rejected. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has not applied for provisional assessment. The appellant is entitled for refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.50374-50375/2017-SM - A/56303–56304/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 21-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases, the Range Superintendent issued certificates that they have not availed cenvat credit of excess duty paid by the appellant and in some cases they have not given any report. In these circumstances, both the authorities below rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not opted for provisional assessment during the impugned period. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as appellant has been able to produce a certificate from the buying unit that they have not taken cenvat credit. Moreover, Chartered Accountant has also issued the certificate to that effect. It is the contention that they have requested Range authority to certify whether the buyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment by the appellant for the whole year is much higher than the actual liability . 4. As the request for provisional assessment has been rejected. Therefore, as appellant has approached the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner for provisional assessment and same has been rejected. Therefore, the question of opting for provisional assessment during the impugned period does not arise. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR for the Revenue supported the impugned orders. 6. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 7. On careful consideration of both the sides the issue emerges is- (i) Whether the appellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment or not; and (ii) Whether the appellant was required to opt fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
