TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oubt regarding the correctness of the said certificate. I am of the view that if the 3rd respondent had any doubt regarding either the genuineness of the certificate or the correctness of the contents therein, it should have informed the petitioner of the same and given the petitioner an opportunity of producing additional documents to substantiate his claim for refund. That procedure not having been adopted by the 3rd respondent, I am of the view that Ext.P10 order passed by him cannot be legally sustained. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP(C).No. 10158 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2014 - MR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. FOR THE APPELLANT : ADVS.SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SMT.R.S.GEETHA, SMT.P.ANITHA FOR THE R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original No.39/2005 dated 28.10.2005 (Ext.P10), rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on the ground that no evidence had been produced to show that the amount claimed as refund by the petitioner had not been passed on to a third person and in that respect the petitioner had not demonstrated that no unjust enrichment would result if his refund claim was allowed. In view of the pendency of the writ petition, no further proceedings are seen to have been taken by the petitioner against Ext.P10 order. 2. I have heard Sri.V.B.Unniraj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent has chosen not to rely on the certificate of the Chartered Accountant produced by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner was not given any further opportunity to produce documents to substantiate the correctness of the said certificate, on the 3rd respondent entertaining a doubt regarding the correctness of the said certificate. I am of the view that if the 3rd respondent had any doubt regarding either the genuineness of the certificate or the correctness of the contents therein, it should have informed the petitioner of the same and given the petitioner an opportunity of producing additional documents to substantiate his claim for refund. That procedure not having been adopted by the 3rd respondent, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
