Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2006 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 390 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - Unjust enrichment - Interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- We agree with the learned Consultant’s submission (for the Respondent) that when the duty paid during the pendency of an appeal before the appellate authority is considered as deposit, there is no reason why the amount deposited during investigation cannot be considered as deposit. We also find that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jayant Industries [2003 (5) TMI 81 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has merged with the Apex Court’s decision in the case of ITC [2004 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT]. Hence, the bar of unjust enrichment would not be applicable even to the amounts deposited during investigations. The contentions raised by Revenue are not tenable. Hence, we do not want to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority. In the present case, the refund amount arose consequent to Commissioner of Customs order. Therefore, the refund in respect of this amount ought to have been paid within three months from 6-10-2003. Since it was not paid, interest at 12% p. a. with effect from the expiry of three months from 6-10-2003 has to be paid. This is the order of the Commissioner (A) and we have no reason to interfere with it. As regards, the amount in the other appeal before the Commissioner (A), the refund claim was originally filed even on 9-11-2001, therefore the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act are attracted. A careful reading of 27A reveals that the Respondent in the second refund claim are entitled for payment of interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of refund claim as contended in the Cross Objection by the Respondent. Hence, we are inclined to allow the Cross Objection in respect of this refund claim. Thus, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and Respondent’s Cross Objection is allowed.
|