GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 1773 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Rejection of refund claim – Unjust enrichment – Impugned orders rejected refund claims of appellants on grounds of unjust enrichment –Whether bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to cases wherein assessment has been finalized after 13.07.2006 but provisional assessment has been made prior to that under Customs Act or not – Held that:-In appellants own previous case wherein appellant sought relief of excess duty paid, came to be rejected on grounds .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eals – Appellant is entitled for refund claim – Impugned orders set aside – Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal No. C/618 & 619/2010-CU (DB) - Final Order No. 52311-52312/2015-CU (DB) - Dated:- 22-7-2015 - Hon ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial),J. For the Appellants : Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders rejecting their refund claims on the ground of bar of unjust enrichmen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts that the issue is no more res entigra in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in their own case reported in 2012 (282) ELT 368 (Del). He also relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. Vadodara Vs. Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd-2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tribunal LB). He also relied on the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. C.C. Tuticorin-2008 (223) ELT 633 (Tri-Mad). To say that the provisions of section 18 (4&5) of Custom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ey are entitled to refund claim. In these terms, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeals be allowed. 4. On the other hand Ld. AR opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and he relied on their own case wherein the final assessment has been done prior to 13.07.2006 but in the cases in hand the final assessment for Bills of entry has been done prior to 13.07.2006 at the relevant time and finalization of assessment. The provisions of section 18 (4&5) of Customs Act were not i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wer authorities. He further submits that the decision of Panasonic Battery India Co. (Supra) is not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case provisions of Rule 9B (5) were made effective on 25.06.1999 whereas in this case provision of section 28 were in existence. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case the issue before us for deciding is as under: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the cases wherein assessment has been finalized after 13.07 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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