2018 (9) TMI 1429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch and taken up for orders. 2. The ROM application reveals that credit availed by the appellant/applicant after conversion of EOU to DTA was held admissible in the said order as not hit by the doctrine, of unjust enrichment and refund was allowed subject to verification of documents, but the specific rejection of availment of credits by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non-production of original documents was not dealt by the Tribunal specifically, which would cause inconvenience to the appellant in seeking such refund. 3. During the course of hearing of ROM Learned Counsel Shri Vinod Awtani for the appellant submitted that in the said order dated 21.07.2017 Hon'ble Member (Judicial) had referred the case law of Unimax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07.2017, pronouncement date is not reflected therein while the order sheet of the court dated i.e. 21.07.2017 indicates that detail order to follow (DOTF). Therefore no conclusion can be drawn about the definite date of pronouncement of the detailed order for which the date of receipt of order by the applicant, which finds approval of the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in 2017 (357) E.L.T. 123 (Bom.), in Ahmedabad in 2017 (351) E.L.T. 36 (Guj.) is to be taken up for the purpose of computation of the limitation of six months period for making such rectification for which RMO is to be treated as filed within the stipulated time. 5. In respect of the contention of Learned AR for the department that original documents are required to be pr....