TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear that appellant was entitled to the exemption and ineligibility has not been cited as one of the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority. It would, therefore, appear that the bill of entry had been wrongly assessed and required rectification. The appellant could have applied for, and obtained, rectification which would have eliminated the duty liability and, thereby, entitle them to refund arising from erroneous computation. The appellant is entitled to a refund as sanctioned by the original authority - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/104/2006 - A/86694/17/CB - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) None for the appellant Shri Ahi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72) ELT 145 (SC)]. 3. None appeared for the appellant. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative and also perused the grounds of appeal. Appellant is an undertaking of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence. The contract for supply of imported goods has been placed for and on behalf of the President of India. The certificate submitted along with refund application also demonstrates that the imported goods are to be utilised in the manufacture of goods for supply to the Armed Forces of the Union. No reasons have been adduced for rejection of the claim for exemption at the time of import. 4. The first appellate authority, in the impugned order, has decided that there was no provision to grant refund except through pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtainable market prices, the first appellate authority has not recorded the reasons for reaching the conclusion that the duties charged at the time of import had been included in the price of the end product. Without such scrutiny and logical conclusion, findings are contrary to facts. Per contra , the original authority has noted the submission of no enrichment certificate indicating absorption of the duties. It would, therefore, appear that there is no ground to invoke the bar of unjust enrichment. 6. The refund has been denied by the first appellate authority on the ground of disapproval expressed by the Hon ble Supreme Court to seeking of refund without recourse to challenging of the assessment. On perusal of the bill of entry, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
