GST Helpdesk Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 725 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 725 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 104 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Refund of the amount paid as pre-deposit pending investigation along with interest - sanction of refund claim but credited to consumer welfare fund - import of branded Car, Ferrari 599-GTB - denial of benefit of Sr. No. 344(2) of the Notification No. 21/2012 dated 1/3/2002 - seizure of car - voluntary payment of customs duty with interest by subsequent buyer - later on demand of duty and interest set aside - is the refund .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s entitle for refund, we are of the view that irrespective whether duty was paid by a person other than the importer but in connection with the import made by the appellant, it has to be considered that duty was paid by the appellant only therefore only for the reason duty was paid by the Shri. Sanjay Sunil Dutt refund cannot be denied. It is also observed that appellant has not produced sufficient documents to establish whether the incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- 18-8-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. P.A. Augustian, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Chatru Singh, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Orders-in- Appeal No. 567(CRC-I)/2015(JNCH)-Appeal-II dated 30/11/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), JNCH, Mumbai, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original dated 24/11/2014 and dismissed the appeal of the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gly availed by the appellant. The car was then seized from Shri. Sanjay Sunil Dutt, the legal owner of the car. Shri. Sanjay Sunil Dutt voluntarily deposited the duty of ₹ 52,25,502/- towards Customs Duty and ₹ 11,78,101/- towards interest (Total ₹ 64,03,603/-). The show cause notice was issued to the appellant and vide Order-in-Original dated 8/8/2012, the benefit of Sr. No. 344(2) of Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1/3/2002 was denied and consequential differential duty, fine .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rder on merits with consequential relief. Appellant then filed Misc. Application before this Tribunal for implementation of the above order. The Hon ble CESTAT vide order dated 5/3/2013 allowed the application. On this basis, the appellant filed a letter dated 8/7/2013 seeking refund of ₹ 64,03,603/- claiming the said amount was paid as pre-deposit pending investigation. Subsequently, the Hon ble Tribunal passed further orders dated 5/3/2013 on the appellants application for enforcing 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

ugustian, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal in the order dated 9/9/2014 has clearly directed to the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva to refund the amount of pre-deposit made by the appellant within the period of 15 days from today along with interest in accordance with law. In view of this direction, department could not have credited the amount in consumer welfare fund. He further submits that the amount for which the refund is sought for is pre-deposit and provision 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

nrichment, hence the unjust enrichment is not applicable. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment in case of Dharmarajan Pillai Vs. CC, Cochin[2007(216) ELT 434]. Regarding the issue that the claim made by the importer and the amount of duty deposited by Shri. Sanjay Sunil Dutt on behalf of the importer, importer is entitle for refund. In this support he placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in case of Petroplus Internatinal Marketing Vs. CCE, Mangalore [2016(333) ELT 435]. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ided by the adjudicating authority. As regard the exclusion from the unjust enrichment provision, he submits that the car was admittedly imported by the appellant as an individual but immediately on import it was sold to one Shri. Sanjay Sunil Dutt therefore the condition for personal use is not fulfilled therefore unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. Regarding the submission of Ld. Counsel that the refund is of pre-deposit hence unjust enrichment is applicable is not accepta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is no dispute as the Adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund which has not been challenged by the department, therefore as regard the sanction of the refund, it attained finality. Now only issue to be decided whether the provision of unjust enrichment is applicable or otherwise. The appellant has vehemently argued that amount for which refund is sought for was paid during the investigation therefore the same is pre-deposit hence the provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicabl .....

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 invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that in the present case refund is required to be tested under the provisions of unjust enrichment as provided under Section 27. We observed that though the car was imported by the appellant in individual capacity but it is admitted fact that immediately after import the car was sold. In the Section 27 clause(b) provisions of unjust enrichment is not applicable in case where duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty on imports made by an individual for his personal use . However in the presen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ale the car. However, the car was not sold therefore Tribunal held that amount cannot be credited in consumer welfare fund only on the apprehension that the importer was at liberty to sale the car at any time after import. In the present case, admittedly the car was sold before filing the refund claim therefore the judgment of Dharmarajan Pillay(supra) is not applicable in the fact of the present case. We therefore hold that considering the facts of the present case though the car was imported b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mental authority to grant refund alongwith interest in accordance with law, therefore the issue of unjust enrichment could not have been avoided by the adjudicating authority. It is applicable in the facts of the present case therefore, we do not find any error in applying the provision of unjust enrichment for disposing the refund claim by the Adjudicating authority. As regard the issue raised by the appellant that though duty for which refund was sought for paid by the subsequent buyer of 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

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| 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