9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: SS Garg These four appeals have been filed by two appellants against the two impugned orders dated 07.01.2014 and 14.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Since the issue involved is common, therefore all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments. But the lower authority vide Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2011 rejected the refund claim and aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original and hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that all duties, cess etc are to the sellers account and also as the amount realized as per the Banker's certificate was only FOB value, therefore there is no unjust enrichment and the cess had to be refunded. The learned counsel further submitted that by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Division Bench of the Hyderabad Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsustainable. We accordingly hold that the principle of unjust enrichment does not bar the refund claim under Section 27 read with 28D of the Act and the point is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants." 4.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly held that the CHA is not authorized to file the said refund whereas the fact of the matter is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
