TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... For Respondent: Mrs. A.S. Parab, AC (AR) ORDER PER: DR.D.M. MISRA Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.PKS/9/BEL/2011, dt.03.05.2011, passed by the CCE (Appeals), Belapur 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the relevant period i.e. July 2004 to August 2008, the Appellant, an 100% EOU, paid Education Cess third time in discharging the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls). The learned Commissioner (Appeals), even though did not agree with the observation of the Adjudicating authority that the refund claim is barred by limitation, rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment and other issues not considered by the Adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 4. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the evidences produced by them, no specific findings have been recorded on the issue of unjust enrichment and other issues affecting the quantum of refund. He submits that he has no objection in remanding the matter to examine the documents in detail by the Adjudicating authority. 5. The learned A.R. for the Revenue fairly submits that no appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the third time under protest, therefore, not barred by limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, he concludes that since the Appellant failed to establish that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer, therefore, not eligible for refund. The documents referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) have not been examined by the Adjudicating authority, while....