9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of refund claim of ₹ 3,69,633/- in the case in hand has been shown as amount receivables - the First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the OIO. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/10073/2016 - Order No. A/10117 / 2018 - Dated:- 3-1-2018 - Shri M V Ravindran, Hon'ble Member ( Judicial ) For the Applicant : Shri S N Gohil, Authorised Representative For the Respondent : Ms Dimple Gohiol, Advocate ORDER Per : Shri M V Ravindran, This appeal is filed by the Revenue against OIA-JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-086-15-16 dt 14/10/2015 passed by the Commissioner of CUSTOMS (Prev.)-JAMNAGAR 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration, after filtering of unnecessary details th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not mentioned in the certificate he has come to conclusion, it is his submission that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded in detail the reasoning on question of unjust enrichment has been held against the respondent herein. He submits that in a situation like this, this Tribunal in the case Ultratech Cement Ltd A/10944-10950/2017 dt 28.2.2017 was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority while remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue by alternate. 4. The Ld Counsel, on the other hand draws the attention of the Bench the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority and also the text of certificate produced by the Adjudicating Authority in Order in Original. It is his submission of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be incorrect as that the Adjudicating Authority has not rejected the CA certificate. 6. At the same time, on plain reading of the CA certificate which is reproduced in the Adjudication order it is noticed that the said CA specifically records that based on the examination of the books of accounts of the respondent they have come to a conclusion that the amount of refund claim of ₹ 3,69,633/- in the case in hand has been shown as amount receivables. I find that the First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the OIO. The relevant portion of the findings of the First Appellate Authority are reproduced below : I find that appellant is importing Crude Oil for manufacture of petroleum products. In the present case al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Another point which was raised by the Ld DR that this Bench in the Ultratech Cement case has remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority on similar situation. On perusal of the said decision of the Tribunal, I find that the said case law may not carry the Revenue s case any further, as it is seen from the Para 6 of the decision dt 28.2.2017, that the appellants therein had produced CA certificate before the Bench, and that the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) are on different footings which was not communicated to the appellants. In my view, in the case in hand, the First Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the OIO and allowing the appeal. 8. In view of the fore going, I find that the appeal filed by Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
