TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment is not applicable to the refunds in regard to assessments finalised prior to 13/07/2006 - the order passed by the authorities below crediting the sanctioned refund to the consumer welfare fund is unjustified - appellant is eligible for refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/31128/2016-SM, C/31129/2016-SM, C/564/2009-SM and C/565/2009-SM - A/31390-31393/2016 - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri P. Rama Krishna Adv, for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner(AR), for the Respondent. [Order per: SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S.,] The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. At the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disposed as under. 3. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant as a consequential relief arising out of encashment of bank guarantee and finalisation of provisional assessment done prior to 13/07/2006 is hit by unjust enrichment. 4. The brief facts are that appellant who is registered for four project contracts for import of capital goods viz. Photo composing systems and agfa type setting equipment by availing benefit of customs Notification No.90/94-Cus dt. 01/03/1994 imported the said items vide Bills of Entry. The said Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally and appellant had furnished PD bonds and also executed Bank Guarantees. The said Bank Guarantees were encashed by the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tals [2015(323) ELT 359 (Mad.)]. It was also argued that the provisional assessments being finalised prior to 1307-2006, the refund is not hit by unjust enrichment. For which, he relied upon the judgment laid in the case of CC Vs. Indian Oil Corporation [2012(282) ELT 368 (Del).], CC(Export), Chennai Vs. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. [2015(321) ELT 583 (Mad.)] and N.K. Overseas Vs. CC, Ahmedabad [2015(317) ELT 356 (Tri. Ahmd)]. 7. On behalf of the Department, the learned AR Shri P.S. Reddy argued that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment as the appellant has not reflected the Bank Guarantee in their accounts as receivables. He therefore contended that the sanctioned refund has been rightly credited to the consumer welfare fund. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
