9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case are that the appellant imported umbrella cloth panel declaring them as components of umbrella and filed bills of entry during the period May, 1993 to March, 1996. The assessment were made provisional on the aspect of valuation under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 on PD bond of 20% of duty payable on the declared value of the goods. The lower adjudicating authority finalised assessment vide order dated 30-3-1996, enhancing the value by 20%, and appropriated the revenue deposit. The appellant challenged the same before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide O-I-A dated 30-7-1998 set aside the O-I-O and allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. On 25-7-2005, the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment were finalised in July, 2008. In this manner, the refund was filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that they have made pre-deposit consequent to provisional assessment which was made in 2006 under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that sub-section (5) of Section 18 was substituted with effect from 13-7-2006 incorporating the principles of unjust enrichment in case of provisional assessment made under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The contention is that in view of the above statutory provision, the principles of unjust enrichment do not apply to the provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to 13-7-2006. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case and they were finalised on 9-1-2007 after various rounds of litigation. As per Rule 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the date of final assessment cannot be taken as 1996 when the first Order-in-Original was passed since the same was under challenge which was finally resolved by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 9-1-2007 whereby he finally upheld the case in favour of the appellant, which has not been challenged by the department. Under these circumstances, refund of pre-deposit cannot be held to be time bar. There is no other ground for rejecting the refund of pre-deposit. Therefore, we find that the same is sanctionable, so far as unjust enrichment is concerned. The period involved is prior to 2006. This Tribunal in Hindus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
