TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC, Chennai Vs. Venkataeswara Hospitals [2009 (4) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that bar of unjust enrichment not applicable to imported capital goods used captively by the importer - refund cannot be denied. Interest - Held that: - the appellant is entitled to interest as laid down in Section 27A in accordance with the rates fixed by the Central Government's notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/755/2008-SM - 20925/2017 - Dated:- 11-4-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Smt Rukmani Menon, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 06.08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elfare Fund as the appellant had failed to produce the documents under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act. In other words, the appellant failed to satisfy the requirements of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner wherein the appellant clearly contended regarding the CA certificate and the fixed assets register. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld the Order-in-Original and denied the refund on the bar of unjust enrichment and hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of both the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the precedent decisions cited supra. Further I also find that the refund claim arises on account of the order passed by the CESTAT on 18.07.2006. Further I also find that in support of the refund claim appellant has filed all the documents and also filed a certificate of the CA who has certified that the lamps were recorded in the fixed asset register and fixed in the operation theatre and the same are being used for surgical procedure and not sold. In fact both the authorities have not considered the certificate issued by the CA and have ignored the same by holding that it does not conclusively prove that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the case of Sun Tex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva cited supra , this Tribunal has observed in para 8 as under: 8. Even if the claim of revenue that the documentation is incomplete is not in doubt, it is seen that no such deficiency was brought to the notice of the applicant. In these circumstances, the claim of incomplete application does not find any support. The application, therefore, must be presumed to be complete. Further, I find from a perusal of Section 27A of the Customs Act, that where a duty is ordered to be refunded and the said amount is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application, the interest liability shall crystalise. Accordingly, in the case of the appellant, failure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
