TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expiry of three months from the date of filing the application for refund till the refund is granted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/1615/2011-SM - - - Dated:- 3-8-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Ms. Sandhya, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 07/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had imported safety devices like smoke detectors, fire alarm systems and availed the benefit of Notification No.52/2003-Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not apply to deposits. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions:- i. CC, Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006(206) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)], affirmed by Karnataka High Court reported in 2008(221) ELT 489 (Kar.)] ii. CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Pricol Ltd. [2015(320) ELT 703 (Mad.)] iii. CCE, Mumbai-V Vs. Atul Industries [2004(168) ELT 353 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. Steel Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata-II [2003(158) ELT 476 (Tri. Kolkata)] 4.2. She further submitted that the limitation of 6 months is not applicable where the deposits are made under protest. She also submitted that filing the present appeal itself would tantamount to the amounts having paid under protest. For this submission, she relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od prescribed under the law. He further submitted that the duty was not paid under protest and therefore the limitation will be applicable. He also submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is also applicable in the present case. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record and various judgments relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that in the present case, the amount was deposited during investigation and later on the Commissioner has held that the appellant was not liable to pay duty and thereafter the appellant filed the refund claim. Further I also find that in view of the judgment in the case of Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, that when the amount is paid durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
