2007 (6) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. 14-9-05. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 12,00,000/- on 1-4-1991. This refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground of limitation. On an appeal filed by the appellant the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 30-12-99 set aside the order- in-original holding that limitation does not arise in the facts of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ducts was consumed for the manufacture for the final product, hence unjust enrichment does not arise. 4. Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that even if payment of duty is made subsequent to the clearance of final products, the appellant has to prove that the incidence of duty is not passed on. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen from the recor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een that the period involved in the case before me is squarely covered by the exemption notification issued under Section 11C. It is an admitted fact that the appellants had cleared the final product manufactured out of these intermediate products, on payment of appropriate duty. Revenue's case that unjust enrichment is applicable in these case is without basis, as central Government would not hav....