2015 (2) TMI 1067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Appeals-III), Hyderabad.  This order disposed of an appeal preferred by the assessee against the adjudication order dt. 30/06/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad 'G' Division bearing reference No.6/2011.  The impugned order concluded that the refund claim for Rs. 64,08,609/- presented by the assessee is hit by the principle of unjust enrichment; that though the refund claim for Rs. 43,95,928/- was admissible on merits in terms of the appellate order No.6/2009 dt. 27/02/2009 and the said amount ought to be sanctioned, the same is however liable to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944.  The impugned order further concluded that the refund claim, to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11/2008 and the conclusion recorded therein that the assessee had not recovered excise duty and therefore unjust enrichment would not arise.  This show-cause notice alleged that though the assessee had not directly passed on the burden (of excise duty), its claim for refund would still hit by the principles of unjust enrichment, for reasons alleged in the show-cause notice.  These proceedings culminated in the order dt. 30/06/2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad G Division who rejected in toto the refund claim for Rs. 64,08,609/-, on the ground that the issue of unjust enrichment should be reexamined after detailed verification of the assessee's books of accounts and balance sheet. 6. In the meanwhile an appeal ....