2017 (11) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt by order dt. 12.7.2010. Thereafter the appellant filed refund claim for the amount deposited i.e Rs. 1,51,410/- on 12.1.2012. The show cause notice was issued proposing rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar as well as unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on both the ground, the appellant being aggrieved by the order-in-original filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by upholding the order of the adjudicating authority, therefore the appellant is before me. 2. Shri D.R. Gadekar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf appellant submits that the amount of refund is of deposit made during the investigation, therefore it is not a duty, and refund of such amount is not governe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the relevant date should be taken from the date of passing of the order. In the present case, the order dropping the demand was passed on 12.7.2010 and the refund claim was filed on 12.1.2012, therefore the refund was filed much after 1 year from the relevant date, hence it is time barred. As regard the unjust enrichment, he submits that the onus is on the assessee to prove the incidence of duty paid by them has not been passed on to any other person. This burden was not discharged by the assessee, therefore the unjust enrichment is clearly applicable and refund was rightly rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment also. He placed reliance on the following judgment. (i) S.S. Dyes And Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumba....