TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication for refund is dated 28.02.2019. Therefore, there are no reason as to how the said refund claim is hit by limitation. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes one year within which an application for refund needs to be made and again, which is also qualified under Explanation (B)(ec) to Section 11B ibid. Going, therefore, by the dates, it is found that the appellant s claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any defects in the above documents and there is also no discussion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the same. The allegation of unjust enrichment has not been proved by the Revenue. On the other hand, in the absence of any contrary findings on the documents, the appellant has been able to successfully prove that the tax incidence has not been passed on to its customers - the rejection of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held the disallowance made in the OIO. After hearing the rival contentions, I do not find any dispute as regards facts are concerned. The appellant made an application for refund after passing of the Final Order of CESTAT, Chennai, which is dated 13.06.2018 and the application for refund is dated 28.02.2019. Therefore, I do not see any reason as to how the said refund claim is hit by limitation. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the First Appellate Authority and accordingly, to this extent, the impugned order is set aside. 5.1 With regard to unjust enrichment, it is the case of the appellant that the Duty element was not passed on to its customers, in support of which they had placed reliance on documents like the certificate of Chartered Accountant, Income Tax returns, P L Account, etc. This fact, though has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant has been able to successfully prove that the tax incidence has not been passed on to its customers. 6. In the light of the above, the rejection of refund is held to be vague and unjustifiable, for which reason the impugned order is set aside. 7. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (Order pronounced in the open court on 04.02.2022) - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
