TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he final order was passed. The original authority is, therefore, required to consider the pending refund claim dated 18-5-2004 in terms of the remand order. This requirement is very much clear from the text of the final order. The obvious need not be reiterated. Therefore, the application is rejected. - E/167/2006 - M/13-14/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB), - Dated:- 24-12-2010 - Shri P.G. Chacko, J. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the matter to the original authority with a direction to pass speaking order under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The present Application No. E/MA(ROM)-693/2010 points out a mistake in the operative part of the final order. It says that the mention of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act in the final order should have been avoided inasmuch as the original authority is most likely to pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the prayer of the counsel is that it be clarified in the final order that the refund claim should be considered without the bar of unjust enrichment. I have heard the learned JDR on this point. 3. After considering the submissions, I find that the counsel has made a valid point with regard to unjust enrichment. It is not in dispute that the refund was claimed of an amount of credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent, the ROM application stands allowed. Contextually, I find another mistake in para 5 of the final order. Section 27 of the Customs Act was mentioned therein by apparent inadvertence. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act shall be substituted for Section 27 of the Customs Act . 4. The next application has apparently been occasioned by a letter of the Assistant Commissioner viz : letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
