9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, Addl. Comm. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.101 (Gr.VII D)/2011 (JNCH)/Exp-26 dated 01/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal vide order dated 01/04/2005, the appellant fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law. Further, he submits that during the course of investigation, they paid the entire amount of Rs. 1,39,98,148/- now claimed as refund were deposited 'under protest'. It is his contention that even through the protest was later withdrawn, however, filing of the appeal against the order of the denial of benefit of DEEC benefit itself is continuation of their protest. In support, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant certificate produced before the authorities below. Also, a certificate dated 18/12/2018 indicating that the amount claimed as refund have been shown in the books of accounts, viz., profit and loss account as receivable. It is his contention that since the entire burden on duty claimed as refund not passed on to others. Therefore, refund is admissible to them and cannot be disallowed on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim has been filed on 04/10/2005. In our view, communication of order is relevant for computing the period of six months. Accordingly, the refund claim is within time. With regard to the finding of the authorities below on the issue of unjust enrichment, the learned Advocate produced the CA certificates and other evidences to establish that the burden has been discharged. Even though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
