2018 (5) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri U. Sengraj, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER Rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment, is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a process house, engaged in the work of processing of man-made fabrics. During the period 16-12-1998 to 29-2-2000, the value of galleries was included in the length of the chambers ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 33,67,824/- as time bar. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise vide order dated 22-11-2004 has allowed the appeal of the appellant with consequential benefit. In view of the favourable order by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant vide its letter dated 30-11-2004 made the request for grant of refund before the authorities. Thereafter, the Department issued the sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such stand, the ld. Advocate has produced the balance sheet for the relevant period and also a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the appellant Company. She also produced the affidavit executed by the buyers of the goods to show that the excess claimed duty by the appellant had not been paid by them. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates th....