Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CC (Exports) , Chennai Versus M/s. Pioneer Power Corporation Ltd.

2015 (6) TMI 576 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Security deposit - Held that:- 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 security deposits. By respectfully following the Hon ble High Court decision above, we hold that the appellants are eligible for refund of cash security deposit and there is no infirmity in the order of the LAA - Decided agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al 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 bar of unjust enrichment. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal with consequential relief. He .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ditions prescribed, the deposit is adjusted towards payment of customs duty. The chapter heading 9801 covers import of goods falling under Chapter 1 to 97 of CTA. The cash security deposit is mandatory to safeguard the customs duty. Therefore, she submits that Section 27 is applicable even for refund of cash security deposit and unjust enrichment clause was also applicable and the adjudicating authority has rightly sanctioned and credited the same in CWF as the respondent has produced any eviden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e 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 tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d s circular No. 89/95 dated 09.08.95, stipulates the requirement of cash security deposit of 2%. Revenue s only contention is that the cash security deposit made by the respondent under project imports is nothing but customs duty and pleaded the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the LAA relied on Tribunal s decision in the case of Motor Industries Ltd. Vs. CC (Tri.-Mum.) 2005 (188) ELT 315 (Tri.-Mum.) and Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Import), Mumbai(supra) and in the case of CC (Export), Chen. Vs. Scientific Instruments 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 V .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th of us are parties in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. M/s. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 504 (Mad.) = 2007 (3) TNLJ 532, wherein we have held that the bank guarantee cannot be regarded as equivalent to payment of duty and it is only furnished to safeguard the interest of the Revenue in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation. Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank gu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version