Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs Mangalore-Cus Versus Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals Ltd

2017 (8) TMI 395 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - finalization of provisional assessments - Held that: - 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 Mangalore Refinery 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 asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Order-in-Original by allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent-assessee imported crude petroleum for manufacture of petroleum at their refinery in Mangalore. During the period 13.1.96 to 15.3.98 they had imported 144 consignments through IOCL, the canalizing agent and filed into bond bills of entry for warehousing into their shore tanks, which were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3/2006 dated 6.2.2006, the Hon'ble CESTAT upheld the decision and remanded the matter for computation of duty. The matter was examined and OIO No.16/2006 passed on 29.12.2006 wherein it was confirmed that there was an excess payment of ₹ 1,20,51,866/-. Based on this order respondent filed a refund claim for ₹ 1,20,51,866/-. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vide Order-in-Original No.4 (Refunds) dated 25.3.2009 has sanctioned refund of ₹ 1,20,51,866/- and of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also submitted that since they were a public sector undertaking, the unjust enrichment clause cannot be applicable. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order setting aside the Order-in-Original is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the original authority has rightly rejected the refund by applying the principles of unjust e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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