Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (12) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Ms. D.M. Durando, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied their refund claim on the allegation that the appellant has not passed the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are the manufacturer of excisable goods whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Appeals) held that the appellant has not passed the bar of unjust enrichment and, therefore, their refund claim was rejected. Consequently, the appellant are before us. 3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal as agreed by both the sid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....We have examined the documentary evidence produced by the appellant during the course of hearing. On examination of these documents, we find that the appellant has been able to prove that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment and the adjudicating authority has rightly allowed their refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these documents produced by the appellant before ....