2018 (3) TMI 1417

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RDER PER: DEVENDER SINGH The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of pressure cookers and their parts. For the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009, the appellant were allowed provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Vide letter dated 24.8.2009, the appellant have furnished statement of sale value at MRP duly certified by their chartered accountan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s hit by limitation as the refund has been filed beyond the prescribed limit of one year. The said adjudication order did not deal with subject of unjust enrichment for 2008-09, which was the basis of the show cause notice. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that the claim for 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the show cause notice, but the same has not been considered by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. He prays for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Ld. AR reiterates the finding in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and examined the record. 5. I find that the appellant were allowed the facility of provisional assessment under Rule....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claim of the appellant was not tenable because the same had been submitted before the finalization of the provisional assessment. Both the authorities did not give any finding on the issue of unjust enrichment for which the show cause notice dt.25.6.2015 was issued. There is no discussion in the orders of both the lower authorities on the submission of the appellant on the issue of unjust enrichm....