TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellants wanted to avail the provisions of Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 in respect of the Tyres and Tubes procured for use as original equipments by following Chapter X procedure. Even though they filed application with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate referred to the Final Order No. 308/2005 dated 28-2-2005 passed by this Bench in respect of the same appellant. In that case the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were entitled for the benefit of the Notification but the claim was hit by bar of unjust enrichment. In this appeal the only difference is that the appellants procured g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a of decisions to strengthen his point that the appellants should not be punished for the delay, which is not attributable to him. 5. The learned SDR reiterated the findings of the Original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). He urged that there is no record to show that the appellants had maintained proper account of the goods received. The learned Advocate pointed out that the Revenue ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have produced the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The rejection of the Chartered Accountant's certificate without proper reason is not justified. In a similar case of the same appellant, we had discussed the issue of unjust enrichment elaborately. The ratio of that case would be squarely applicable here also. Hence, the OIA has no merits. We allow the appeal with consequential re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
