TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic condition vis-a-vis non- existence of unjust enrichment was a prospective one and was not clarificatory as was sought to be urged by the revenue. That decision is a subject matter of a special leave petition. This Court concurs with the view of the Gujarat High Court, more so since in the present case the importation took place earlier and we note that the claim of refund was not subjected to the condition which was brought in by way of amendment for the first time on 13.07.2006. In view of the discussion no substantial question of law arises for consideration - Decided against Revenue. - CUSAA 9/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. V. Easwar,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviding that in case of provisional assessment under Section 18, the limitation period of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment, the provisions of Section 18 relating to provisional assessment were not amended and Section 18 continued to provide that if on finalization of provisional assessment, the duty finally assessed is more than the duty provisionally paid, the assessee shall be entitled to refund of the excess duty paid. The provisions of Section 18 regarding Provisional Assessment of Duty were amended only w.e.f. 13.07.2006 specifically making the refund of duty on finalization of Provisional Assessment subject to the principle of unjust enrichment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 2003-2004, the refund claim of this extra duty deposit had arisen on 20.01.2004 when the Assistant Commissioner passed the order accepting the declared transaction value and the refund claim had been filed within one year on 20.01.2005. Therefore following the judgment of the Larger Bench we hold that principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable to this refund claim. Since this is the only ground on which the rejection of the refund claim has been upheld, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. As is evident from the above, the revenue cannot dispute that there was an excess payment. The second aspect of the matter is the claim arose out of and was prior to 13.07.2006. On that date t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
