9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue of unjust enrichment and the documents submitted by the appellant to substantiate their claim. The matter requires re-examination by the adjudicating authority in terms of SCN dt.25.6.2015 - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/60872/2017 - A/60122/2018 - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Brahmanda Pani, Vice President P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icient documentary evidence that proof of incidence of duty amounting to ₹ 4,98,620/- has not been passed to the buyer. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 16.5.2016 asking them to explain as to why doctrine of unjust enrichment should not be applied in their case for rejection of their refund claim. The matter was adjudicated. Vide Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2015, refund of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submits that they had filed refund claim on 24.8.2008 and provided all the documents relating to certificate and statement showing excess payment of duty. He further submits that they had filed reminder application dated 9.3.2015 for their refund claim and that vide letter dated 17.6.2015, the Department requested to submit documents pertaining to issue of unjust enrichment. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment had to be examined. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 25.6.2015 was issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted the required information which was requested by the Department. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was not a ground in the show cause notice. The first appellate authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
