9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Heard both sides. 2. These three appeals are filed against OIA-JMN-CUSTM-000-APP-017-019-17-18 dt 20/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-AHMEDABAD. 3. The issue involved in the present appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to refund of Rs. 9,19,801/-, Rs. 22,05,052/- and Rs. 45,99,006/- which though sanctioned was trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant filed three refund claims for the amounts which were earlier recovered from them by en-cashing the bank guarantee in 2012. The Adjudicating Authority though sanctioned the refund claims but transferred the same to Consumer Welfare Fund observing that the appellants failed to establish that the burden of duty had not been passed on to the customers ignoring the plea of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umer Welfare Fund on merit and also pleaded before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to keep the matter alive and requested the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) in abeyance pending decision of the SLP filed them before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment dtd 28.4.2016 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded with the matter and rejected their appeals. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cability of principle of unjust enrichment, when bank guarantees have been encashed effecting recovery had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pending as on date. Besides, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court order dt 28.4.2016, the appellants were allowed to furnish further documents to cross the hurdle of unjust enrichment before the Adjudicating Authority. In these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
