Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 195 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - Principles of unjust enrichment - Imported goods as ''wireless telephone'' - whether the lower authorities were right in rejecting the refund claims on the question of unjust enrichment - whether the refund amount of the penalty was rightly rejected as time barred - HELD THAT:- With regard to refund of the penalty amount, As seen from the order, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Original No. 36/2004 and the penalty was set aside. Therefore, the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the appellant has not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal against the Order-in-original 36/2004 is factually incorrect and accordingly, denial of refund of Rs.20,00,000/- cannot be sustained. Refund of the differential duty amount - It is clear that the tender documents clearly prove that the appellant was to bear the increase in duty burden and as submitted by the appellant’s Chartered Accountant certificate dated 15.3.2012 had only stated that the additional duty along with interest and penalty paid had resulted in erosion of profit/increase in the loss. Alternative plea of the appellant that unjust enrichment is not applicable to State Undertakings as has been held in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited [2006 (7) TMI 11 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE)]. Thus, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders to deny the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned orders are set aside and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|