TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view taken by the Tribunal at Madras in the case of Cortland Exports. With the result, petitioners would be entitled to refund as claimed amounting to Rs. 1,15,565.63, the quantum of which is not in dispute. - Refund will be subject to unjust enrichment. - 210 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2010 - V.C. Daga and R.M. Savant, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Agasti Vibhute i/b. Khaitan Jayakar, for the Petitioner. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : V.C. Daga, J.]. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused petition. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition to challenge the order of assessment relating to the bills of entry filed by the petitioners, det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of entry contending that the assessment is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner's bill of entry is liable to be assessed in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal at Madras in the case of Cortland Exports (supra) while interpreting the Notification No. 431-Cus. dated 30th September, 1985 and that the consequent relief of refund should be granted to the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the judgment of the Tribunal at Madras in the case of Cortland Exports (supra) has been accepted by the Revenue and that the said judgment is still holding the field. 6. Per contra, Mr. Pardeshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the petition is misconceived and devoid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced on record. He, thus, submits that in order to maintain consistency in exercise of judicial powers, this petition is also liable to be considered and decided on its own merits in the tune which the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1917/1986 decided on 4th February, 1987. Consideration : 11. Having heard rival parties, it is, no doubt, true that the petition when filed in the year 1987, it did not contain prayer challenging the order of assessment of the bill of entry and the petitioners had directly prayed for refund of duty. The reason being that this Court had not only entertained petition involving identical facts and issues but allowed the same, being W.P. No. 1917/1986. The petitioners, thus, thought it fit to file similar pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the above view of the matter, the assessment of the bill of entry done by the customs authorities holding that the rate of duty was Rs. 20/- per kg. less 7 % i.e. 7 % of Rs. 20/- is liable to be declared as bad and illegal and stands substituted with that of rate of duty @ Rs. 20/- per kg. less 7 % ad valorem. Accordingly, the order of assessment is set aside and stands substituted in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal at Madras in the case of Cortland Exports (supra). With the result, petitioners would be entitled to refund as claimed amounting to Rs. 1,15,565.63, the quantum of which is not in dispute. 15. It is needless to mention that in view of subsequent amendment to the Customs Act, the doctrine of unjust enrichment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
