2016 (5) TMI 1242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eena, Advocate ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The appeal by Revenue is against order dated 2.2.2007 of Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Jaipur. The respondent are engaged in the processing of textile fabrics on job work basis. During the period March, 2001 to Feb. 2002, the respondents were paying central excise duty on the basis of provisional assessment. The assessments were finalized by an order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the burden of duty was borne by them only. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 2.2.2007 allowed the appeal on the ground that the Original Authority is bound by earlier appellate order which has reached the finality. He held that the respondents are eligible for refund in terms of the earlier appellate order. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Revenue con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d credit. Even in the case of provisional assessment, the duty paid has to be verified to decide the question of unjust enrichment. The first order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing such adjustment has not gone into in detail of the legal provisions relating to unjust enrichment. On this ground, ld. AR submitted that the present order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing to comply with th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 25.11.2003 held that the Adjudicating Authority should have adjusted the amount of duty recoverable against excess payment made by the assessee as there is no dispute that the assessee had paid excess duty and the assessment for that period was provisional. It is seen that no appeal has been filed against the said order and the same has become final. However, in respect of adjusting the duty....