9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial) This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 281/2003 dated 29.8.2003. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1998 the appellants had filed price declaration which were provisionally assessed. These provisional assessments were finalised by the adjudicating authority on 20.8.2002. Consequent to such finalisation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also his submission that they did not produce any evidence before the first appellate authority as it was not an issue before him. 4. Ld. SDR would submit that the question of absence of unjust enrichment has to be substantiated by evidence, which was not produced before the first appellate authority. 5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd substantiate their claim that they have borne the element of duty, the refund needs to be allowed to them. Since at the second appellate stage such details could not be gone into, the evidence needs to be gone into detail by the adjudicating authority; we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue, in the light of the sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
