9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i for M/s. Trivedi Gupta for the Appellant. Shri Harin P. Raval for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta] - The appellant has proposed the following two questions: (I) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that both the lower authorities had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had failed to discharge the burden as regards payment of duty having not been passed on to others? (II) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing Appeal No.E/2552/02-MUM filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed the following order: "1. Heard both sides. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The issue relates to refund claim. The refund claim appears to have been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority inter alia on the ground that the appellant has failed to follow the procedure laid down under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944. While rejecting the claim, the Adjudicating Authority has also noted that the claim is time barred. He has also taken the principle of unjust enrichment while rejecting the refund claim. The chartered Accountant's Certificate filed by the Respondent has been rejected by both the Lower Authorities as the same has not been found adequate and satisfactory. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant had paid certain amount of duty after 13.10.1983 under protest and hence refund to the tune of Rs.9,24,078/- was admissible. Despite this, the Tribunal has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed part of the claim. 7. Furthermore, as can be seen from the last sentence of the impugned order, without recording as to what was the contention raised in the written submissions filed by the respondent-assessee, the Tribunal has merely recorded that the written submissions filed by the respondent have been duly considered. The placement of the sentence itself indicates that the said sentence has been inserted after the order was made. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, without recording any opinion on merits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
