TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/50362/2015-EX[DB] With CROSS Application No. E/CROSS/50644/2015 - Final Order No. 70808/2017 - Dated:- 27-7-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Appellant Shri S. P. Ojha, Consultant for Respondent ORDER The present appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 83/- 23,18,718/- respectively for the above stated Financial Years in excess of duty due from the respondent. The respondent submitted application for refund of excess duty paid by them as held by Original Authority during the finalization of assessments. The respondents were issue with letters informing them for supply of required documents and on receipt of required documents, the same were sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LKO/2011 dated 27/08/2012, there is no need to discuss again. He has further held that there was no enrichment at the cost of the customer, whether directly or indirectly and therefore, he has rejected the appeal filed by Revenue. Being aggrieved by the said order Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal filed by Revenue as follows:- (A) The respondent had not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact on record, we find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that once the provisional assessment got finalized on the basis of requisite documents already submitted by the respondent, the refund claim cannot be denied for want of requisite documents. We also find that Commissioner (Appeals) had already given a finding that the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment and Revenue has not bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
