TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2001, was withdrawn subsequently on 27-2-2002 - a fresh claim was filed only on 7-3-2002 and this was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B - this claim cannot be treated as continuation of the original claim inasmuch as the latter was withdrawn - E/901/2005 - 755/2008 - Dated:- 24-7-2008 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri Ramasubramanian, Consultant, for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned, the refund claim was within the prescribed period. The lower authorities found that the duty burden had been passed on by the assessee to their buyers at the time of clearance of the goods. They held that the subsequent issuance of credit notes to the buyers did not have the effect of removing the bar of unjust enrichment. In this connection, the lower appellate authority relied on the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Central Excise (Appeals) ought to have disposed of the Grounds No. 2 and 3 filed before him." 3. The Consultant for the appellants relied on the High Court's decision in Addison Co. v. Commissioner - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.). He submitted that, in view of the Hon'ble High Court's decision, the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries case [2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground of unjust enrichment is only to be sustained. 4. The refund application for the period November 2000 to March 2001 was originally filed on 29-11-2001. It appears from the records that this application was withdrawn subsequently on 27-2-2002 by way of a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. After such withdrawal, no refund claim for the said period was pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
