9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the claim for refund of duty paid, during the original assessment, has been denied on the ground that the same is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of Brake Linings & Clutch facings. During the process of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23-6-1997 and 3-7-1997 the appellant filed refund claims of the duty paid under protest. Both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the premise that the appellant has not produced relevant documents. On appeal before this Tribunal the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the documents produced by the appellant to ascertain whether the duty has been paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the duty has been paid by the appellant or not and there was no issue of bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore, new issue cannot be raised during remand proceedings. To support this contention he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Mumbai-IV v. Beekalene Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 659 (Bom.) and this Tribunal's decision in the case of CC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments were not produced by the appellant. In that situation, the adjudicating authority would not have considered the issue of bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the ground raised by the learned Advocate that they have rejected the refund claim on the new ground is not acceptable. In fact, while considering the refund claim it was found that they are entitled for the refund claim and at this st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
