TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of doctrine of unjust enrichment does not require the crutches of any section of any act in the light of the fact that the said doctrine was required to be invoked in all cases involving refund of duty in the wake of the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) which laid down the principles of unjust enrichment as law of the land. - doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable even in respect of raw materials to be consumed it, settled by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). It is not in dispute that the burden to establish that the burden of duty has not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs initially assessed the goods provisionally and the provisional assessment was finalised vide Order-in-Original No.7/2006 dated 20.10.2006. The provisional assessment was made on 25.10.2005 and 11.07.2006 which was well before the amendment in section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 incorporating the doctrine of unjust enrichment as the said amendment was w.e.f. 13.07.2006 and therefore the principles of unjust enrichment were not applicable with regard to refund arising out of finalisation of provisional assessment. It also stated that the goods on which the refund was claimed were inputs and the price of the finished goods was reduced subsequent to the import of raw material which should be taken to mean that the burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doctrine is applicable even in case of finalisation of provisional assessment is applicable to the present case too. The appellant cited several judgements like in the cases of CC, Kandla Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri-LB)], CC Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj)] and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. CC, Chennai [2009 (242) ELT 228 (Tri-Chennai)]. None of the judgements cited by the appellant are of the Supreme Court while the aforesaid analysis is supported by the pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra). Even in the case of CC Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra) the Gujarat High Court only stated that no provision existed in section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
