2009 (6) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Prasad, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal of the department is against grant of a refund to the respondent by the lower appellate authority. The respondent had paid differential duty on 25-9-03 by way of debit in CENVAT account in respect of certain excisable goods cleared during 1999-2002. This payment was under protest and the dispute between the party and the depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below :- "I find that the claim for refund of Rs. 3,00,000/- filed by the appellant has been rejected on the ground that the said amount has been shown as administrative and selling expenses in the balance sheet of 2003-04. The adjudicating authority has concluded that since the amount is shown as expenditure in administration and selling expenses, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nses in the balance sheet shows that there is no unjust enrichment. There appears to no need for the appellant to adduce any further evidence to show that there is no unjust enrichment." 2. In the present appeal of the department, the main ground raised by the appellant is that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) chose to act illegally by placing the burden of proof on the department in relatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., N. Sheva - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 360 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein a claim for refund of duty which was paid subsequent to clearance of the goods as in the present case, was held to be inadmissible in cash to the assessee on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the respondent as well. According to him, the claimant could substantially discharge the burden under Sectio....