9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the aspect of unjust enrichment has not been considered by the original authority - subsequent to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the original authority vide Order dated 30.12.2016 has examined in detail the aspect of unjust enrichment - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21713/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20053/ 2018 - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - SHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period January 2011 to March 2011. The original authority after following the due process rejected the refund claim and aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original. Hence the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by the assessee and the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have upheld the decision of the original authority which had rejected the refund claim. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly set aside the impugned order which is not proper and legal. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.12.2016. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that the aspect of unjust enrichment has not been considered by the original authority and I also find that subsequent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
