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 →

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus M/s. National Fertilisers Ltd.

2016 (3) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Rejection of refund of amount paid under protest - Unjust Enrichment though the imported goods were used for the manufacturing of fertilizers - Import of 2 catalysts charges claiming benefit of Notification No. 66/94-Cus but denied by the Department - In urgency appellant cleared consignment by paying duty on imports under protest - Held that:- the fertilizers manufactured by the respondent are under strict price control regime and the subsidy for the production cost is borne by the Central Govt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

i M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr (AR) For the Respondent : None ORDER PER: M.V. RAVINDRAN This appeal filed by Revenue is against the order-in-appeal No. 91/2004 (JNCH) dated 29.10.2004. 2. None appeared for the respondent despite notice. 3. Since the matter is of 2005, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent. Heard learned D.R. and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding rejection o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd subsequently contested the issue. The first appellate authority by impugned order has allowed the appeal and held in favour of the respondent-assessee. 6. Learned D.R. would bring to our notice of the facts of the case and reads the grounds of appeal . The contention of Revenue in this appeal against the impugned order is only on the ground that the first appellate authority has not considered the issue of unjust enrichment though the imported goods were used for the manufacturing of fertiliz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

apital goods used in the manufacturing of excisable goods, doctrine of unjust enrichment is attracted. 7. After considering the submissions made by both sides in detail, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund of an amount paid under protest by the appellant for having denied the benefit of exemption Notification by the Customs authorities. The undisputed facts are that the respondent had imported 2 catalysts charges and claimed the benefit of Notification 66/94-Cus; .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

im:- I have carefully gone through the records, the impugned order, the ground of appeal of the appellants and the cross objections filed by the importers before my predecessor. I am inclined to accept the importers submission that while giving the subsidy the Government was aware that it had issued Customs Duty Exemption Certificate therefore subsidy has no relation with payment or refund of Customs Duty. The appellant has not brought any evidence on record to show that production cost of fert .....

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