TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) AND MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms B.V. Siva Naga Kumari, A.R. for the Appellant. Ms A.S.K. Swetha and Mr N. Viswanathan, Advocates for the Respondent. Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against orders-in-Appeal No. 1 2/2008 dated 10/04/2008 filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of the amount paid by the assessee and excess collection of duty on account of inclusion of stevedoring and wharfage charges. It transpires that the respondent had imported coking coal during the period 2000-2004 and filed various bills of entry which were provisionally assessed for want of information. Subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court of Bombay in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt Ltd Vs UOI [2004(164) ELT A 177 (SC)] has held that all claims of refund under Customs Act 1962 must pass the test of unjust enrichment as contained in Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962. She would submit that the judgement of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Mumbai-II Vs Standard Drum Barrel Mfg Co. Ltd [2006(199) ELT 590(Bom) would apply in its full force as also the decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Vs UOI [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC]. 5. On a careful consideration we find that it is not in dispute that the coking coal was imported during the year 2000-2004 which was under provisional assessment. The amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c Ltd., has categorically settled the issue wherein in paragraph No. 8 held that prior to 13.07.2006, any provisional assessment which were finalised, refund arising out of that had to be made without any claim being submitted by the importer. 7. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Larger Bench considered the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of CC Mumbai Vs Standard Drum Barrel Mfg Co. (supra) and CC Mumbai Vs Allied Photographics India Ltd [2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC)]. 8. In view of the foregoing, the issue having been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, after considering all the case laws which are relied upon by the learned Commissioner (A.R.) and held in favour of the importer, we hold that the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
