TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Accordingly, I have gone through the impugned order and heard ld. Jt. CDR. 2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plastic goods falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the officers on 22-1-2000, who conducted various checks and verifications. During the investigations, appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 5,14,149/- f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the ground of time bar as also on unjust enrichment. On appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same vide his impugned order. Hence the present appeal. 5. On going through the reasonings adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for denial of the refund, I observe that the appellate authority has held that though the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal and sound reasoning in the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly, the earlier order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside in its totality. The fact that it was set aside on the point of limitation and not on merits, cannot come in the way of the appellants being entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them during the investigation period. Misinterpretation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
