TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the memorandum of understanding between the appellant and his supplier abroad as well as the DGFT letter dated 28.02.2012 permitting the import at 50US$ per SQM. The impugned order has simply rejected the appeal of the appellant after holding that the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment. Once a refund is barred by unjust enrichment then it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to credit the said refund to Consumer Welfare Fund which has also not been done in the present case. The present case is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner with the direction to examine the issue of unjust enrichment - appeal allowd by way of remand. - C/21626/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20463/2018 - Dated:- 6-2-2018 - MR. S.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as assessed accordingly and appropriate customs duty was paid. The appellant submitted notarized copy of MOU dated 21.12.2010 to the DGFT, New Delhi made with their foreign supplier M/s. International Marble Co. Oman according to which the price of imported goods was agreed upon to be US$50 per SQM. Further the appellant has irrevocable letter of credit furnished by their overseas supplier for supply of polished marble slab at US$50 per SQM. The appellant made a representation to the Customs for accepting the value of imported goods at US$50 per SQM instead of US$60 per SQM. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 29.06.2012 was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the refund claim. Adjudicating authority after following the due process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll imports transaction are after 08.04.2011. He further submitted that on the issue of unjust enrichment the appellate authority vide the impugned order has held that the refund is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Further the appellate authority has also not considered the CA certificate as the CA certificate was found to be defective as per the opinion of the appellate authority. He further submitted that the appellate authority has not considered the DGFT letter dated 28.02.2012 permitting import quantity of 1,98,547/- Sq. Mtrs. He also submitted that the appellate authority has not considered the application of DGFT letter allowing import at 50$ per SQM. He also submitted that the appellant has affected the import within prescribed limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once a refund is barred by unjust enrichment then it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to credit the said refund to Consumer Welfare Fund which has also not been done in the present case. Further I also find that the decision which have been relied upon by the appellant showing that the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case has also not been considered by the lower appellate authority. In view of all these discrepancies, I am of the considered view that the present case is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner and I do so. Consequently the case is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to examine the issue of unjust enrichment in the light of the decisions relied upon by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
