TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Heard both sides. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Custom House, Mumbai wherein the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs was rejected. The original adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the assessee for refund of Rs. 3,87,836/- deposited pending finalization of provisional assessment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal by upholding the order of Dy. Commissioner of Customs. Hence this appeal. 2. I have perused both the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities. The following questions crop up in this appeal : (a) The amount deposited by the importer or exporter after the provisional assessment pending finalization of assessments or at the time of provisional assessment is to be treated as pre-depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment of duty but the proper officer deems it necessary to make further enquiry for assessing the duty; the proper officer may direct that the duty leviable on such goods may, pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, be assessed provisionally if the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, furnishes such securi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding himself in a sum equal to twice the amount of the excess duty. (b) After finalization of the assessment, if anything is to be paid extra or no deficient is found to be adjusted and the importer seeks refund of amount already paid is implied the principle of unjust enrichment. (3) In the present case, the appellants have already produced the evidence showing that the incidence of duty has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); (2) Mafatlal Industries Limited - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.); (3) SRF Limited v. CCE - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.); and (4) Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE C - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C) denied the refund to the appellants. After examining all these aspects, I am convinced that the refund claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The refund is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
