9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant filed refund claim on 23.6.1997 and 3.7.1999 of duty paid on intermediate goods during the period August 1979 to March 1987. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims vide order dt. 30.4.1998 for non-submission of the documents. Being aggrieved by the order dt. 30.4.1998 the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of unjust enrichment would not apply for the period prior to 25.6.1999 when goods not provisionally assessed. The department has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against order dt. 21.1.2014 which is pending meanwhile the Assistant Commissioner taken up the matter for disposal of the refund in the light of Tribunal's order dt. 21.1.2014 and once again sanctioned the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumer Welfare Fund by the Assistant Commissioner and upholding the same by the Commissioner (Appeals) is contempt to the Tribunal's order, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Shri Deepak Chavan, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter should go back to the adjudicating authority who should wait for the outcome of the appeal pending before the High Court. I, therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction that refund may be re-processed in accordance with law on the basis of the outcome of the Revenue's appeal in Central Excise Appeal No.260/2014 in the Hon'ble H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
