9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - In the present appeal the appellants have challenged the orders of the authorities below vide which refund claim of Rs. 10,76,566.38 has been rejected by them on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants M/s. Extrusions placed an order with a West German manufacturer for supply of one unit si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of the said extruder. The agreement dt. 26-2-1990 provided for sale of the said plastic extruder imported by M/s. Extrusions to M/s. Extrusions (1985) Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 30,82,623.38 and also other expenses incurred up to that date in connection with the import of that machine. The said expenses were realised by the importer from the said company before release and/or clearance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order. Hence the present appeal. 5. Shri S.N.S. Mahapatra ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the peculiar facts of the case should have been kept in mind by the lower authorities before discarding the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. He submits that the sale was complete before the clearance of the goods and subsequently bill of entry etc. was filed by M/s. Extr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty element has been recovered by M/s. Extrusions from the Pvt. Ltd. Company the bar of unjust enrichment would apply. 7. We have given our careful consideration to the issue involved before us. We find a lot of force in the submissions of the ld. SDR. It is on record that the assessable value was challenged by M/s. Extrusions and refund claim was filed by them. The appellants' plea tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
