9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the bunkers and provisions to be consumed on the vessel "MT Swarna Kalash" during the period of her coastal run. The BE was initially assessed provisionally on advance payment of Rs. 59,51,007/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Fifty One Thousand and Seven only). Consequent to the reversion of the vessel, ibid, into foreign run, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Appraising), New Customs House, Panambur, Mangalore finalized the provisional assessment in terms of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and noticed an excess payment of Rs. 38,85,649/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only). Accordingly, the claimant filed a refund claim seeking the refund of Rs. 38,85,649/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the records. 4. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the claimant had shown the amount paid towards Customs duty as 'expenditure' and not as 'receivables' in their books of account and hence the refund claim is not free from the unjust enrichment. She further submitted that the CA certificate alone cannot be relied upon for deciding the principles of unjust enrichment. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following decisions: a. CC, Mangalore-Cus. Vs. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. - 2017 (8) TMI 395 - CESTAT BANGALORE b. Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C) c. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Chennai Vs. Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities, I find that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case because the Shipping Corporation of India is a Public Sector Undertaking and in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. cited supra. Further I find that in the present case doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable because the appellant is seeking only the refund of excess duty paid inter alia at the time of provisional assessment and when the assessment was finalized it was found that he has paid excess amount of Rs. 38,85,649/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) which should have been refunded to him without issue of show-cause notice. Further I find both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
