TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner rejecting their claim for the refund of the duty on the ground of limitation. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the claim of the appellants could not be held to be time-barred as they filed the same within the stipulated period of six months from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal in their favour vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund of the appellants had been held to be time-barred on the ground that they did not lodge a formal protest under Rule 233 while depositing the duty demanded from them. But the Commissioner (Appeals) has lost sight of the fact that immediately after depositing the duty which was confirmed against the appellants by the authorities below, they filed an appeal against the said impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund claim of the appellants to be time-barred, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 5. The authorities below have not decided the refund claim of the appellants on merits. They had dismissed only on the ground of limitation, which, as observed above, is not sustainable. On merits, as to whether the claim of the appellants is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment or not has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
