2017 (12) TMI 1185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R The fact of the case is that the appellant filed refund claim on 23.6.1997 and 3.7.1999 of duty paid on intermediate goods during the period August 1979 to March 1987. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims vide order dt. 30.4.1998 for non-submission of the documents. Being aggrieved by the order dt. 30.4.1998 the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4 allowed the appeal holding that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply for the period prior to 25.6.1999 when goods not provisionally assessed. The department has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against order dt. 21.1.2014 which is pending meanwhile the Assistant Commissioner taken up the matter for disposal of the refund in the light of Tribunal's order dt. 21.1.2014 and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roceedings such as credit of refund to Consumer Welfare Fund by the Assistant Commissioner and upholding the same by the Commissioner (Appeals) is contempt to the Tribunal's order, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Shri Deepak Chavan, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideratio....