TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical to the facts of the present case, thus making the ratio of law declared by the Hon’ble High Court as applicable to the facts of the present case. Refund rejected also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that: - No documents or records stand verified by the lower authorities so as to come to the conclusion of unjust enrichment and only a general observation to the extent that no prudent businessman would continue to pay higher duty without passing the same to the buyer of the goods, stand made by the appellate authority - As such, while allowing the appeal on the point of limitation, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examination of the principles of unjust enrichmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble CESTAT, Chennai vide its Final Order No. 278-313 dated 18.03.2002 has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his denovo order held that lump-sum fee paid by the appellants to their principals is addable to the invoice price under Rule 9 (1) (c) of (erstwhile) Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. In turn, the appellants again preferred appeal before the Hon ble Tribunal, Chennai and the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 935/2008 dated 27.08.2008, held that Technical know-how fee is not required to be added to the transaction value and the said order was accepted by the Department vide F.N o. M/40/2009 dated 31.10.2008. 2. Therefore the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable in refund of extra duty deposit made pending finalization of provisional assessment and the same are required to be automatically refunded without filing application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. I find that the factual position in the case before the Hon ble Madras High Court is more or less identical to the facts of the present case, thus making the ratio of law declared by the Hon ble High Court as applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the refund of extra deposit made by them during the pendency of the matter before various authorities. 5. It is also seen that the refund stands rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment also. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
