9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order (Oral)]. - This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 648/2006-Cus., dated 1-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A), Cochin. 2. I heard both sides. 3. The learned Advocate stated that the appellants imported newsprint. As the first test of the department revealed that the goods were other than newsprint, under protest the appellants discharged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to the judgment of the decision of Chennai Bench rendered in the case of Styleman v. CC, Chennai as reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 559 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein in an identical circumstance, the Tribunal allowed the refund. 4. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the issue relating to unjust enrichment had not been examined. He also reiterated the decisions of the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not challenged is not at all correct. An identical situation was examined in the decision of Chennai Bench cited supra. In my view, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund of the higher duty already paid. However, before granting the refund, the unjust enrichment aspect has to be carefully examined in accordance with law. Hence, while holding that the appellant is entitled for refund, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
