9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. On the last date of hearing, Shri Anil Vyas, Additional S.E. appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appeal was adjourned for today. But today neither he nor the appellant himself has put in appearance. No request for adjournment has been received. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned SDR. 2. The controversy in this appeal relates to the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed under Section 11B(1) of the Act. The plea of the appellant that it was not the duty but money which was paid by him in excess and as such, Section 11B did not apply to their case, in our view, is wholly misconceived. It was only the excess duty which was paid by him and not the simple money in any form, to the Revenue. Therefore, the provisions of Section 11B did apply to the case. [15] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, goes against him instead of helping him in claiming refund of the excess amount, without crossing the bar of unjust enrichment. The plea of the appellant that his assessment was provisional had been also rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for want of any evidence to substantiate the same. 4. In the light of the discussions made above, we find no illegality in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
