9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indran] 1. These two appeals are disposed by common order as raised a question in Orders-in-Appeal. 2. None appeared on behalf of the applicant despite notice. Since the appeal is filed in 2008, we take up the appeal for disposal even if the absence of any representation. 3. Heard Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adjudicating authority had erred in not examining the claims with reference to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 5. M/s Shalimar Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., in the grounds of appeal, inter-alia, contended that the rejection of refund claim is contrary to settled law and facts of the case and is not sustainable and that the authority did not render any findings on the citations placed on record; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RLT 555 (Cegat, Del). 6. The Department, in its grounds of appeal, inter-alia, contended that the Bills of Entry were assessed finally and were not assessed provisionally for any of the reasons under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962; these were passed provisionally only for payment of duty provisionally as per the orders of the Hon'ble AP High Court). In the case of Surya Roshini Ltd., (1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y pursuing after entire records, was following his own order No.25 & 26/2006 dated 31.10.2006 while deciding this issue. The very same Order-in-Appeal No.25 & 26 was in appeal before the Tribunal in appeal No.C/114/2007 filed by the appellant and appeal No.C/180/2007 filed by the Revenue. it is noticed that appeals arising against Order-in-Appeal No.25 & 26 has been disposed of by the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
