2019 (2) TMI 1969

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. ORDER The refund of the appellants were rejected on time bar and unjust enrichment on the ground that the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of Tribunal's order and on account of unjust enrichment that the original authority has given finding that the amount of refund was shown in the balance sheet but the same was not carried forward in the subsequent year howev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the facts of this position. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. Shri K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the refund claim of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red that the incidence of duty has been passed on even though it was not subsequently shown in the balance sheet. It has to be seen that whether the incidence has been passed on to any other person. Accordingly, the findings of the original authority that merely because the amount was not carried forward in the subsequent balance sheet the refund is hit by unjust enrichment is not correct. As per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X