TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner has held that the refund is not admissible in respect of the amount which was not borne by the appellant. Even today when the matter was argued by the Ld. Counsel, he could not produce any evidence as regard unjust enrichment, therefore the appellant is not entitled for the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment itself. - decided against appellant-assessee. - Appeal No.E/2269/06 - ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal order the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal mainly on the ground of unjust enrichment observing that the amount of duty has been collected by the appellant from their customer. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is before me. 2. Shri Sachin Chitnis, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they are not required to pay dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the findings of the impugned order. He submits that it is an admitted fact that the amount of freight along with duty was recovered by the appellant from their customer therefore they are not entitled for the refund. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed that the appellant could not estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
