2017 (5) TMI 1295

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1.2007 for an amount of Rs. 32,85,761.57 which they had earlier paid under protest. A show cause notice was subsequently issued to them on 09.4.2007 proposing its rejection/transfer to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant filed necessary evidences and a Chartered Accountant Certificate claiming that the burden of duty has been borne by them and not passed on to any other person. However, their refund claim was rejected on 06.11.2007 on the ground of unjust enrichment. Later, on filing an appeal against the said order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal vide order dated 28.11.2008 and consequently the refund amount of Rs. 31,76,563/- was received by the appellant on 17.4.2009. The appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity as on 06.11.2007 that cannot be a ground for denial of interest on expiry of three months from the date of application of refund. In support, they referred to the judgment dated 18.3.2016 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case Purnima Advertising Agency Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India in Special Civil Application No.20496 of 2015. 4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he submitted that the appellant had filed refund application after one year from the date of order of the Tribunal. Hence, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh - 2003 (157) ELT 500 (SC) the refund itself is barred by limitation. Ld. A.R. has ....