TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es on the application for stay of operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), by which he has held that the bar of unjust enrichment will not operate against the respondents herein and therefore they are entitled to the refund of Rs. 1,06,826/- paid by them on 15-1-1998 in respect of clearances of pre-recorded video cassettes made between March to December, 1997, we find that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which was decided by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise in their favour on merits, but however, the Dy. Commissioner held that the company had failed to produce substantial documentary evidence to establish that the amount for which refund was claimed was not collected from their customers, in spite of producing the certificate from the Chartered Accountant, to the effect that they had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relevant time, appellants had not obtained any registration from Central Excise authorities and, therefore, the question of discharge of Central Excise duty does not arise on the disputed clearance. Also, it is reported in the impugned order that the said amount of Rs. 1,06,826/- was paid by the appellants on TR-6 Challan No. 5/97-98, dated 15-1-98, which is a date later to the said disputed cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay application by the Revenue. 5. According to the Revenue the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have sanctioned the claim by accepting the Chartered Accountant's certificate as this was not sufficient for the purpose of establishing that the burden of duty had not been passed on by the respondents to their customers. The Revenue's contention is that further documentary evidence is require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
