9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is not the Revenue’s case that the said Chartered Accountant’s Certificate does not reflect the correct position. Neither they have been able to produce any evidence so as to cause doubt on the said certificate or to rebut the same - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/40165/2017 - Final Order No. 41126/2017 - Dated:- 4-7-2017 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC(AR) For the Respondent Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv. ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC(AR) appearing for the Revenue and Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate before the LAA, in which the Chartered Accountant, after verification of the books of accounts of the appellant, has certified that the excess duty of ₹ 7,62,841/- paid, was not passed on to any customer/recipient of services or any other person. At the time for personal hearing, the appellant furnished a further certificate from the Chartered Accountant in which it is clearly mentioned that an amount of due as refunds, has been shown as receivables/recoverable in the books of accounts of the appellant and this amount has not been taken into account while arriving at the cost of services provides to the customers. Along with this certificate, an extract of the general ledger, having an entry by JV dated 30.11.2015 is als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Shree Krishna Nylon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2015 (327) EL,T.626 (Tri. Mumbai). Accordingly, he directed the lower authority to sanction the refund of ₹ 7,62,841/- [Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty One only]. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 8. Revenue's contention is that the said refund claim would be hit by unjust enrichment inasmuch as, the appellants have not established beyond doubt that the said duty paid by them was not recovered from their customers. However, I find that the goods imported by the appellant are light and light fittings which are used by them in their hotel for enhancing the beau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
