2008 (11) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the ground that they were not at all dutiable. - This shows that duty burden could not have been passed on at the time of clearance of the said goods. Subsequently, the duty was paid in view of the confirmation by the Order-in-Original. Later, the Tribunal held that these two items were non-dutiable. - The Commissioner (Appeals)’s reasoning that there could not be unjust enrichment in such c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is on account of the duty paid on two items viz. Multiplex Multinol and Multiplex Samras. Consequent to the Order-in-Original, the respondent paid the adjudication levies immediately in order to avail the benefit of 25% of the penalty imposed without prejudice to their right of appeal. All along, the respondents have been holding that these items are non-dutiable. This position was confirmed by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to satisfy the Original Authority with regard to unjust enrichment by producing suitable documentary evidence. This has not been done. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not right in allowing the said refund claim. She reiterated the Grounds of appeal. 5. On a very careful consideration of the issue, I find that when the goods were origin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X