9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst Order-in-Appeal No.107/JSR/2012 dated 26.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant had raised a supplementary bill bearing No.22473 dated 07.01.2010, wherein differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und being improper and also on account of unjust enrichment. The ld.Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on both counts. Aggrieved by such order, the Appellant preferred an Appeal before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in turn, upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant. Hence the present appeal. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim on merit as well as on the ground of failure to produce of evidences to show that the burden of duty had not been passed on to the customer. Further, he submits that the evidences now produced before this Tribunal, from M/s Tata Motors Ltd., were not placed either before the Assistant Commissioner or the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) for verification. He submits that mere production of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cability of unjust enrichment. Besides, I find that the documents now produced by the ld.Consultant for the Appellant, were not placed before the adjudicating authority so as to enable him to scrutinize whether burden of duty had been passed to the customer and also on the aspect of eligibility of refund claim by the Appellant. Both sides agree that all the documents/evidences need to be scrutiniz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
