TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (1) of Section 18 of the Customs Act and the clearance of the goods was on payment of duty so assessed. Later on, the Bills of Entry were finally assessed on the basis of Ullage Survey Report, which showed lesser quantities vis-a-vis Bills of Lading. Accordingly, the customs duty payments made by the party became excessive and, consequently, refund claims were filed with the department. These claims were rejected on the ground that the claimant had not shown that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. In other words, the refund claims were held to be hit by unjust enrichment. When the original authority held so, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter upheld the lower authority s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt vide 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) which has been followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the instant case. DR has further pointed out that, as the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) involved only Central Excise issues, the decision in that case may not be applicable to the instant Customs case. In Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a Customs issue and hence the ruling rendered in that case should be applied. 5. I have examined the submissions. The question to be settled in this case is whether the refund claims for customs duty filed by the appellants consequent to final assessments of the relevant Bills of Entry are hit by the bar of unjust enrichment or not. In Para 95 of the judgment rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mutatis mutandis to the refund claims filed by the appellants. As a matter of fact, this view appears to have been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Alcatel Modi Net Works Systems (supra). Other points raised in this appeal are only of academic interest. 6. In Mafatlal Industries, the ruling was given by a Bench of 9 Judges of the Supreme Court. The judgment in Solar Pesticides (supra) was rendered by a bench of 3 Judges of the Court. Following the ratio contained in Para 95 of the Supreme Court s judgment in Mafatlal Industries, which has been followed by this Tribunal in Alcatel Modi Net Works Systems (supra), which decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide 2002 (146) E.L.T. A96, I hold that the refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
