9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of pressure cookers and their parts. For the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, the appellant were allowed provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Vide letter dated 24.8.2009, the appellant have furnished statement of sale value at MRP duly certified by their chartered accountant. The said assessment was finalized on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n filed beyond the prescribed limit of one year. The said adjudication order did not deal with subject of unjust enrichment for 2008-09, which was the basis of the show cause notice. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that the claim for 2008-09 was premature as the appeal has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been considered by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. He prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and examined the record. 5. I find that the appellant were allowed the facility of provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the period 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same had been submitted before the finalization of the provisional assessment. Both the authorities did not give any finding on the issue of unjust enrichment for which the show cause notice dt.25.6.2015 was issued. There is no discussion in the orders of both the lower authorities on the submission of the appellant on the issue of unjust enrichment and the documents submitted by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
