CANNON STEELS PVT. LTD Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions are involved in this appeal - whether refund claim was barred by time and whether the refund claim was hit by the mischief of unjust enrichment.

(2.) ARGUING for the appellant, Shri L.P. Asthana learned Counsel submitted that the matter had been dragging on for a number of years before the Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner on one ground or the other. In the first order, the Assistant Commissioner has held that it was hit by unjust enrichment and he has not discussed anything on limitation. On the other hand, he observed that on the finalisation of the provisional assessment the refund claim was subjected to unjust enrichment. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter to decide the issue whether incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers or not. It was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner that no incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers. Second time, appeal was filed before the Commissioner and again the Commissioner has remanded the matter. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order not only on the issue of unjust enrichment but also observed that it was barred by time. The second order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) SHRI Asthana contended that the lower authority ought to have confined to the issue of remand and he is not empowered to go beyond the remand order. This point was specifically taken by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Commissioner (Appeals) also has not given a reasonable finding on this issue.