TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of there is no unjust enrichment - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/30052/2018 - A/30360/2018 - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant. Shri M. Rajendran, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M. V. Ravindran.] This appeal is filed by Revenue directed against Order-in-Appeal No. No. HYD-EXCUS-MD-AP2-0048-17-18 dated 11.09.2017. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of an amount of ₹ 6,80,974/-. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim and the First Appellate Authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim with the lower authority claiming the deposit made by them at the time of departmental intervention. A show cause notice dated 02.11.2016 was issued to the appellants proposing to reject the subject refund claim on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment in terms of Sec. 11B(2) of the CE Act, 1944. After due process of law, the notice was adjudicated in the impugned order wherein the refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the appellants failed to prove the bar of unjust enrichment with relevant documentary evidences and that the claim was hit by bar of limitation as the claim of under protest was not recorded with the department at any point of time. The rejection of the refund claim in the impugned order culminated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in it is correct prospective, and the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal only on limitation in favour of the respondent herein. I find that it is not so, in order to appreciate the findings of the First Appellate Authority on the ground of unjust enrichment, I reproduce the relevant portion from paragraph No. 5.2 which reads as under: 5.2 The lower authority vide para 7 of the impugned order rejected the Chartered Accountants Certificate submitted by the appellants on the ground that it did not speak of the period during which the subject amount of refund has been shown as receivables and also held that they failed to substantiate their claim with necessary financial statements or documents such as profit and loss account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
