2004 (12) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant. Shri Kumar Santosh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. -  In this appeal, the appellants have questioned validity of the impugned order-in-appeal denying them the refund of the excess paid duty amount in question by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. 2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the requisite documents, were placed before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, contended that the evidence now referred by the ld. Counsel was not furnished by the appellants to the adjudicating authority and was produced for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rightly ignored the same. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 5. There is no dispute regarding the excess payment of the duty by the appellants. Their right....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner (Appeals) has referred to only to the C.A. Certificate produced before him by the appellants. He has not made reference to the vouchers or copies of the balance sheets produced before him. He has refused even to take cognizance of that C.A. certificate also. But this, in our view, in the interest of justice, should not have been done. He should have gone into the authenticity, correctnes....