TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 ₹ 38,85,649/- which should have been refunded to him without issue of show-cause notice - Further both the authorities have examined in detail the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and has returned the categorical findings that doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and the Shipping Corporation of India has not passed on the Customs duty to any other persons and has itself suffered duty. Also, the authorities have examined in detail the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and has returned the categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sional assessment in terms of Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and noticed an excess payment of ₹ 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 ₹ 38,85,649/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) which was found to be paid in excess. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), after verifying the claim, has sanctioned the refund of ₹ 38,85,649/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) vide the Order-in-Original No. 64/2016 Refund dated 25/11/2016. 2.1. The Department however challenged the Order-in-O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 2014 (12) TMI 530 Madras High Court d. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-II 2014 (5) TMI 767 CESTAT Mumbai 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the authorities have properly examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 ₹ 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 the authorities have examined in detail the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and has returned the categorical findings that doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
