TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities below. The original authority has wrongly rejected the refund claim on time bar by holding that the claim has been filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date i.e. purchase date whereas the original authority should have considered the limitation of one year from the date of finalization of the assessment as provided in Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 but the same has not been done by the original authority - the case needs reconsideration - Further, the original authority will also consider the issue of limitation of one year which will start from the date of finalization of the assessment and not from the date of purchase made by the appellant. Appeal disposed off by way of remand. - E/20766/2018-SM, E/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority, the appellant filed two appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) has held that the appellants are having local standi to file the refund application and as far as the unjust enrichment is concerned, the learned Commissioner (A) has held that the refund claim is barred by principle of unjust enrichment and the third issue was with regard to the limitation on which the Commissioner (A) has not given any finding but rejected the appeals of the appellant. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head balances with Government authorities and shown in the balance sheet for the year ended 31 st March, 2018. The Chartered Accountant has also certified that the said duty of excise has not been passed on to any other person by the company. 4.1 Further, the learned counsel has also produced on record the relevant portion of the balance sheet wherein the said amount has been shown as receivable from the Government authorities. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner (A) did not call these documents from the appellant otherwise the appellant would have produced the said documents to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. He further submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Addison Co. Ltd. cited s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (A) is very much legal. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants are having a local standi to file the refund claim as held by the Commissioner (A) against which the Department has not filed any appeal; as far as issue of unjust enrichment is concerned, I find that the appellants have produced before me the balance sheet as well as the certificate of the Chartered Accountant showing that the incidence of excise duty has not been passed on to the buyer or any other person and the same is shown as receivable in the books of accounts but these documents have not been considered by the authorities below. Similarly, I find that the original auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
