ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. Both these appeals raise a common question of law whether time bar will be applicable to refund arising out of order passed by appellate authority and as a consequence of that order whether time bar will be applicable. These are two conflicting orders passed by two different Commissioners (Appeals). One has confirmed the order of the original authority in the case of M/s. Nice Foto Lab and in the case of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has decided that in the matter of consequential relief time bar will not be applicable.
2. Ld. Consultant, Shri M.S. Kumarasamy has stated that whether refund will arise or not would be known only after the order granting refund has been passed in their favour and therefore there was no question for applying refund at that stage. He also submitted that in both the cases they have submitted the refund claim immediately on receipt of the order from the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Heard Id. DR Shri A. Jayachandran, who has reiterated the departmental stand.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and we are of the considered opinion that the assessees are entitled for consequential refund as contended by learned Consultant. As regards the question of unjust enrichment is concerned that has to be answered by the original authority whether the burden of incidence of duty has been passed on to the customer or not. Only for this limited purpose we are referring the matter back to the original authority for deciding the refund claim. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original authority to decide the question of unjust enrichment alone.