TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t : Shri G P Thomas, AR. PER : H K Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 131/2009/Cus/Commr.(A)/AHD dt. 18.05.2009 under which OIO No.17/DC/ICD/IMP/2008 dt. 17.03.2008, was upheld and appellants appeal rejected. Under this OIA dt. 18.05.2009 first appellate authority has held that applicability of unjust enrichment in the case of appellant was already decided as per OIA No.23/2007-AHD/Cus/Commr.(A)/AHD dt. 28.02.2007 and the appellant is accordingly precluded to file another appeal on the same issue. First appellate authority has also upheld the OIO dt. 17.03.2008 on merits with respect to refund of interest. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that principle of unju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to arrive at any definite conclusion, instead of straightway rejecting the claim. I therefore drafted a table, which is annexed to this order, in which the appellant should submit the required information to the lower authority in about a month's time (columns # 15 16 of the table also specify that certificates from a chartered accountant should be submitted), whereupon the lower authority shall examine the submitted information, especially in columns #15 16. The DCC may take up help of a chartered accountant, if necessary. If it is found that the claimed amount was always accounted for as a receivable ab initio right up to date, the appellant would have obviously proved that the incidence of interest was not passed on. The DCC sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not apply to refund of interest recovered under Section 61(2). However, the period under the Limitation Act may be applicable." 5. I also find that the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CC, Jaipur as reported at 1999 (109) E.LT. 669 (Tri.) upheld the said Circular as correct and allowed the appeal of the assessee and directed that authorities to refund the amount of interest. I find that the issue is no more res integra and the Commissioner's (Appeals) order does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)" 4.2 A similar view has also been taken by CESTAT in this case of Ashok Leyland Vs. Commissioner [2001 (138) E.L.T. 339 (Tri. - Chennai)] wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
