TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot prior to that. Therefore, it cannot be said that the refund claim is barred by limitation. Further, the amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation is not a duty. When no duty has been paid, therefore bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and the same is upheld - Decided against Revenue. - E/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent on 27.01.2004 filed a refund claim of the amount paid by them during the course of investigation as the demand has been set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority as time barred and also held that the respondent has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The said order was challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to pass the bar of unjust enrichment, therefore, the refund claim is required to be rejected. 5. The fact is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has settled the issue only on 18.08.2004 as the demand is not maintainable against the respondent. In these circumstances, the relevant date for filing the refund claim is from 18.8.2004 and not prior to that. Therefore, it cannot be said that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
