2010 (3) TMI 965

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal pertains to three refund claims filed by the appellant, a claim dated 17-7-1996 for Rs. 4,71,355/-, another claim dated 30-9-1996 for Rs. 2,46,936/- and a third one dated 24-10-1996 for Rs. 4,52,160/-. All the three refund claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground of non-production of original documents. In the appeal filed by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ims on the ground of non-production of original documents. The learned S.D.R. has contested the submission that the required documents are irrelevant to the refund claims. In this connection, he has referred to a specimen refund claim. We find that each of the claims was accompanied by only xerox copies of documents. In the covering letter for the refund claim, the party undertook to produce the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 24-10-1996 for an amount of Rs. 4,52,160/- stands on a different footing. In the relevant show-cause notice, the proposal was to reject this claim on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyer. The show-cause notice called upon the party to adduce evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment. But, in adjudication of the show-cause notice, the original authority over....