TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT, BANGALORE] wherein it was held that bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable to the amount deposited during investigation, basing on which he had set aside the order of Adjudicating Authority that the limitation period prescribed for seeking of refund of tax will not be made applicable to the Appellant s case as it was an amount deposited and not discharged against tax liability. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that unless the deposited amount is shown in the Profit Loss Account of the Appellant as amount receivable, doctrine of unjust enrichment would be established, is erroneous. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I), Pune is hereby modified to the extent that the refund amount s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as it failed to establish that Appellant was not unjustly enriched. Hence the appeal. 3. Both sides argued at length and submitted their respective notes as well as relied upon case laws. On perusal of the case record and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is noticed that the ground of rejection of payment to the Appellant s account, as noted by the Commissioner (Appeals), is that Appellant had not produced any evidence, to show that the amount was shown in its Balance Sheet as receivable from government or anything similar to it despite the fact that he himself had reproduced paragraph 10 of the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Union of India [1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bom.)], that even if the amount has been shown on the expenses side that does not mean that the presumption that the burden had been passed to the consumer had been established. 5. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative Mr. N.N. Prabhudesai has relied upon the decision of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (181) ELT 328 (S.C.) and Mahindra Engg. Chemical Products Ltd. of this Tribunal reported in 2019 (368) ELT 84 (Tri.-Mumbai) to support the reasoning of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. As could be noticed, in Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd. the factual distinction between Sahakari Khand Udyog Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
