TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Choudhary, Judicial Member,JJ. For the Applicant : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri G. Derrick Sam, Adv. ORDER Per R. Periasami Revenue preferred the appeal against Order in Appeal dated 19.01.2012 against the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are registered with customs for import of capital goods under project import. On finalisation of project imports, the adjudicating authority in his order dated 20.03.2009 sanctioned an amount of ₹ 12,34,323/-, which was deposited as being a cash security deposit made at the time of registration of the project. However, he credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund by holding that it attracts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. Vs.CCE 2005 (181 ELT 328 (SC.) 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the respondents reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed their appeal. He relied the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC, Chennai Vs.Cable Corporation of India Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 212) and Agrasen Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, Nhava Sheva 2015 (315) ELT 445 (Tri.-Mum.). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the grounds of appeal by the Revenue, we find that prima facie there is no dispute on the fact that the appellants were registered under the project import and cleared the plant and ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments Co. Ltd.(supra) are also not relevant to the present case as the said decision related to denial of concessional rate of duty for diversion of goods imported under project import by one unit and used elsewhere in any other unit or in any other project and other decision relates the applicability of UJE for provisional assessment cases. 6. In this regard of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC Vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) on identical issue, the Revenue appeal was dismissed. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- .The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Aristo Spinners Ltd., 2008 (226) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (158) E.L.T. 135 which has clarified the Supreme Court s decision. 6. In the above stated circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the questions of law formulated for entertaining the appeal are already covered by the decisions referred to above against the department. The appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the issues are identical in nature. The adjudicating authority has already sanctioned the refund but credited to the consumer welfare fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that bar of unjust enrichment not applicable for secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
