TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of July, 2009, it is admitted fact by the Revenue that the appellant had deposited ₹ 5,23,039/- in pursuance to rejection of his claim for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., which was finally allowed by the said order in July, 2009 and adjustment of duty, etc. was done from the amount of the said deposit. It is also observed in the order in favour of the appellant that “balance amount to be refunded to importer on the basis of application to be made by the importer to the proper officer”. In the facts and circumstances, there is nothing else to verify in law except the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which I hold is not applicable under law and facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/8804 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods are eligible for benefit under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. Sr. No. C-18 and Notification No. 159/89-Cus., dated 12-5-1989 Sr. No. 233. (b) Confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 1,46,228/- (c) To recover redemption fine of ₹ 20,000/- and, penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (d) To adjust duty demand of ₹ 1,46,228/-, redemption fine of ₹ 20,000/- and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- from the payment already made of ₹ 5,23,039/- It is noticed that the duty has been reduced from ₹ 5,23,039/- to ₹ 1,46,228/- and redemption fine and penalty has been upheld and the same is adjusted out of the earlier deposit of ₹ 5,23,039/- and accordingly, the appellant was entitled to refund for the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also the amount of duty paid is admitted and also adjustment was allowed for the same. Therefore, the rejection is unjustified on the ground of unjust enrichment and for want of original documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that Rule 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, lays down the manner of filing application for refund in prescribed form appended to these regulations i.e. Application for refund of duty/interest - Part-A which appears to be completed. Further, in para 9 of the said form the claimant is required to submit original documents mentioned therein in support of refund claim. Therefore, the requirement of original document(s) is mandated by Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was provisionally assessed on the aspect of value, PD Bond of 20% of the duty payable on the value of the goods, assessment was finalized enhancing the value by 20% and deposit was appropriated. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order finally and consequently the refund claim was disallowed on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Division Bench of this Tribunal found that the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be a ground for rejecting the refund claim as assessment was provisional and subsequently finalized after various rounds of long litigations. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleads for allowing the appeal. 5. The learned AR relies on the order of the lower authorities an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
