2011 (12) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndo, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied their refund claim on the allegation that the appellant has not passed the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are the manufacturer of excisable goods which were exported by them to their foreign .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... passed the bar of unjust enrichment and, therefore, their refund claim was rejected. Consequently, the appellant are before us. 3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal as agreed by both the sides. 4. Shri Sunil Agrawal, learned cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the appellant during the course of hearing. On examination of these documents, we find that the appellant has been able to prove that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment and the adjudicating authority has rightly allowed their refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these documents produced by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X