TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2008 (9) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] wherein it has been held that prior to the amendment dated 13.7.2006 in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable because the said principle has been incorporated only with effect from 13.7.2006 and has been held by the High Court to be prospective and not retrospective - thus, the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and denial of refund on this ground is not sustainable in law. Rejection on the ground of non-filing of the original document - HELD THAT:- Non-filing of the original document is also not a valid ground for rejection of the refund because the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom related persons and the appellants have paid license fee for the know-how. Since the matter was referred to SVB Mumbai Custom House, the imports were made provisional and appellant deposited 1% revenue and paid duty provisionally. The valuation of imported capital goods were ultimately decided by the Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 20.6.2006 in favour of the appellant and the said order attained finality as the department did not file any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The appellants filed refund of the revenue deposit and duty deposited by them at the time of importation. The original authority after following due process rejected the refund claim being hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. Both the authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not be applicable for the goods imported prior to that date whereas in the present case, the goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 8.11.2004 and the law as it stood at the time of filing of Bill of Entry is alone applicable to the assessment of Bill of Entry. Consequently, the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: Commissioner of Customs vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.: 2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj.) Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: 2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri.-LB) Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam: 2016 (343) ELT 613 (Tri.-Bang.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2 She further submitted that both the authorities rejected the refund claim by relying the decision in the case of MRPL vs. CCE cited supra and the said decision of the Tribunal has been reversed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of MRPL vs. CCE: 2015 (323) ELT 484 (Kar.). She also submitted that refund of excess duty paid cannot be denied on the ground of non-submission of original document. Appellant in fact have appended photocopies of the relevant TR-6 challan and Bill of Entry along with refund application and they have also attached the Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that ₹ 11,17,320/- is shown as receivables under Loans, advances and receivables as on 31.3.2011. The appellant have also filed a af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case and denial of refund on this ground is not sustainable in law. Further, non-filing of the original document is also not a valid ground for rejection of the refund because the appellant has given justification for non-filing the original document and has also submitted that it is not required under law to file the original document in view of the decision in the case of Sambhav Enterprises cited supra. Moreover, they have also filed an affidavit and the bond in support of their claim and moreover, it is not disputed that the appellant have paid excess custom duty of ₹ 11,17,320/-. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
