2015 (10) TMI 1946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund of excess amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation was allowed to be refunded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigation the respondent reversed an amount of Rs. 29,22,631/- under protest on 9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted on the ground of unjust enrichment as well as the respondent failed to produce the evidence in regard to depreciation claimed by them. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who observed that the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioning the refund claim has not been challenged. Therefore, the refund claim is required to be admissible. Aggrieved from the said order, revenue is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....does not arise. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, I find that in earlier round of litigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the excess amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation under protest is not part of the show cause notice. Therefore, the amount retained by the....