9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of re-demption fine. 2. Appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT, for short) were decided vide order dated 13th March, 1992. It was directed that the value declared by the petitioner should be accepted. Dispute about the classification of the goods was not decided. This issue was not raised by the petitioner at the time of show cause notice or during the adjudicating proceedings before the authorities. In the final paragraph of the order dated 13th March, 1992, it was directed that the refund requisition for grant of interest @ 18% on the refund amount, if any, could not be considered by the CEGAT as there was no such provision in the statute and the CEGAT cannot gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contention that the refund of extra duty would not result in unjust enrichment. It may be noted that the petitioner before the Deputy Collector of Customs had stated that the refund amount could be issued in favour of Sant Welfare Trust instead of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the CEGAT which was disposed of vide order dated 7th June, 1994. The said order records that the authorities had stated that the Assistant Collector of Customs vide order dated 2nd May, 1994 had inter alia rejected the claim of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment under the amended section 27 of the said Act. This order dated May, 1994 is impugned in the writ petition. The CEGAT disposed of the application vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haritable/Welfare Trust. Accordingly, the claim of refund of Rs. 1,54,230 and Rs. 42,783 was rejected with the following observations and reasoning :- "I have carefully gone through the records of the case, I have found that despite of giving several reminders and opportunities of personal hearing from time to time and even on issuing of S.C.N. the party have failed to produce authentic documentary proof in respect of undue enrichment. Under the provisions of Customs and Central Excise (Amendment) Act, 1991 (40 of 1991) it is clearly mentioned that in case "the claimant" has not borne the incidence of duty, but the amount of refund is admissible, the same shall be credited to the consumer welfare fund". Since the party have failed to submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
