TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 899
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had exported iron ore against three shipping bills dated 27.10.2007, 02.11.2007 & 03.11.2007 discharging duty provisionally at the rate of Rs. 300/- per M.T. declaring the Fe content of iron ore more than 62%. The said shipping Bills were assessed provisionally. On receipt of the test result where the Fe content was found to be less than 62%, accordingly, the shipping bills were finally assessed by the Revenue. Consequent to the Finalization of the assessment, the appellant preferred two refund claims dated 05.01.2009 & 09.01.2009 claiming total refund of Rs. 48,62,500/-. After scrutiny of necessary evidences/doccuments, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim vide Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e s appeal, arising out of the same de novo order had already been decided. Aggrieved by both the said orders dated 25.03.2010 & 15.09.2010 passed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) the present appeals are filed by the Revenue along with stay applications. 5. This Tribunal dismissed the stay applications of the Revenue vide Order dated 20.12.2011. Consequent to rejection of the stay applications, the assessee-appellant was paid the refund amount of Rs. 48,62,500/- on 26.12.2012. Later the assessee-Appellant filed an applicaton seeking interest on the refund amount for the period after expiry of three months from the date of filing of two refund claims till it was paid. The same was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iple the Tribunal rejected the Stay Applications filed by the Revenue. He submits that the Bank Realization Certificate and other evidences have been produced before the authorities below, estblising the fact that the burden was not passed on to the overseas buyer. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order dt.25.3.2010 has rightly decided the issue in their favour observing that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the overseas buyers. He submits that they have filed refund claim consequent to the finalization of the assesessment. Therefore, interest accrues after three months from the date of expirty of the claim till the receipt of the refund amount. In support, he refers to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed a single order, whereunder, he has considered the test result, assessed the correct duty payable on goods and wrongly decided the refund claim filed by the assessee-appellant. On going through the said order, I find that the authority has examined the test result in detail and considered the eligibility of refund on merit and then transferred it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no non-compliance of the remand order of Ld. the commissioner (Appeals) in the denovo order. On this aspect, Revenue's Appeal has no merit. On the issue of unjust enrichment, I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the evidences i.e. Bank realization Certificate, payments made by the Overseas supplie....