TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R PER: RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant on import of mobile phones paid CVD @6%. Subsequently, in the judgment of SRF Industries Ltd. vs C.C. 2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC) Of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the exemption notification was allowed according to which CVD is payable @1%. The appellant filed refund claim for the excess paid CVD on the basis of said SRF Industries judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar from the date of payment which cannot be held time bar. He further submits that the appellant admittedly filed refund claim initially on 19.11.2015 and 09.10.2015 respectively related to both the appeals. The refund application was returned by the department and subsequently it was resubmitted along with Chartered Accountant Certificate. The date of initial submission of refund should be reckon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant since not submitted any document regarding unjust enrichment which is recorded in both the orders, they have only submitted Chartered Accountant Certificate, therefore, their claim was rightly rejected being time barred and on the ground of unjust enrichment. 5. I have carefully consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty then the same cannot be rejected on time bar. As regard unjust enrichment, I find that the appellant have submitted only Chartered Accountant Certificate however they have not submitted any documentary evidence in support of their claim such as the price structure of the mobile, pre and post payment of excess custom duty they also not submitted their books of accounts in this regard, therefo....