TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [2015 (5) TMI 768 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that unjust enrichment shall not be applicable when the provisional assessment of Bills of Entry was done prior to 13.7.2006 - In the present case, finalisation of the impugned Bills of Entry was done prior to amendment to Section 18 i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills of entry for warehousing into their shore tanks, which were subsequently cleared for home consumption provisionally and were later finalized. Since they had not included the freight charges paid, a case was registered by DRI and a show cause notice issued on 7.1.2000. The same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 25.7.2002 and held that the value of the imported goods shall include ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order, respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and questioned the application of unjust enrichment clause in respect of finalization of provisional assessment which relates to period prior to 13.7.2006 and they contended that the provisions are not applicable to refunds arising out of finalization of provisional assessments. They also submitted that since they we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order and submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in favour of the respondent in the respondent's own case which is reported in 2015 (323) ELT 484 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that unjust enrichment shall not be applicable when the provisional ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
