TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and since the goods were not cleared for home consumption, the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is not attracted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/22440/2014 - 22535/2017 - Dated:- 19-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. M. S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry dated 26.10.2010 for clearance of 84 MTs of Light melting scrap falling under CTH 7204 4900 and was assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the appellant had entered into High Sea Sale Agreement for purchase of 84 MT of light melting scrap from Minar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. who imported the same. The seller had furnished invoices, packing list, certificate of origin, pre-inspection certificate and thereafter, the appellant opened LC dated 17.8.2010 in favour of Anbakam Metals LLC for import of 100 MT of Light Melting Scrap. The CHA filed the Bill of Entry dated 26.10.2010 along with all the documents including the pre-shipment inspection certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because the impugned imported goods were not cleared by the Customs for home consumption and the refund sought was of duty of the amount paid on the goods which were not cleared for home consumption or for warehousing and the application for refund was made under Section 27. He further submitted that the appellants have not committed any offence and as soon as he came to know that the goods which were supplied are contrary to the purchase order, he immediately requested the Deputy Commissioner seeking his permission to re-export the goods. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: Em Pee Syndichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2012 (@79) ELT 340 (Del.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants are entitled to the refund of the same. Further, I also find that the application of the appellant for refund is within the limitation period and since the goods were not cleared for home consumption, the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is not attracted. Appellants have also claimed interest for the delayed refund. Appellants have filed the application for refund on 25.3.2011 along with interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act. In view of the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2011 (273) ELT 3, the appellants are entitled to the interest after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the application for refund. Therefore, I allow the appeal with consequential rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
