9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant Shri Shobha Ram, Commissioner (AR) for the respondent JUDGEMENT Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/266/2010/M-II/2010 dated 31/05/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone II. 2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant, M/s. Hindust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been passed on directly or indirectly to any other person.' 2.1. Accordingly, he has rejected the claim of the appellant for not passing the bar of unjust enrichment. The appellate authority has also rejected the refund claim on the very same ground. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that they have evidences to show that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was used in the manufacture of goods and if the electricity is used for other purposes, the appellant would not be eligible for the benefit of duty exemption and therefore, the refund claim should be reduced proportionately and this order of the appellate authority has become final. However, he fairly submits that this point was not brought to the notice of the adjudicate ing and appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed on to any other person. Subject to production of such evidences, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the matter. The appellant is also at liberty to produce a copy of the order of the appellate authority dated 28/03/2002 with respect to their claim that the issue has already been settled in their favour subject some adjustment, and this order of the appellate authority has attained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
