TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nverted into duty - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that all the refund has to pass through test of unjust enrichment. Therefore, in the present case also unjust enrichment is very much applicable for granting the refund of duty. There is a subsequent development that after appropriation of the refund against their demand, the same was settled in favour of the appellant in MOSAIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV) [ 2020 (6) TMI 285 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] . Therefore, the amount appropriated needs to be refunded subject to passing of the test of unjust enrichment. The matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dated 13.05.2009 was issued to the appellant proposing to adopt US$ 968 as the value of the goods imported by the appellant vide Bills of entry dated 03.04.2008 on the ground that US$668.75 declared by the appellants was influenced by the relationship. The Customs department had invoked Rule 4. The said show cause notice was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 14.09.2009 and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order in Appeal dated 11.03.2011. However, on appeal to CESTAT, vide Order No. A/11113/2020 dated 11.06.2020 CESTAT set-aside the demand and accepted the declared US $ 668.75 as fair price. The said order has attained finality. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide the OIO No. 02/AC/RD/2010-11 dated 29.04.2010 hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same is in the nature of security deposit with the Department. In support of this submission, reliance is place upon the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Cus. (Export), Chennai vs. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 583 (Mad.) ii. C.C., Chennai vs. Mirvera Trade Links (P) Ltd. 2009 (233) E.L.T. 399 (Tri Chennai) iii. SKF Technologies v. CC Bangalore 2017 (352) ELT 355 (Tri. Bang)] iv. C.C., Chennai vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd. 2014 (299) E.L.T. 465 (Tri Chennai) v. V.R. Equipment Ltd. vs. C.C. (I), Mumbai 2007 (217) E.L.T. 277 (Tri- Mum.) vi. C.C., Bangalore v. Ecomaster (India) Pet. Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT. 281 (Tri-Bang.) The Ld. Assistant Commissioner vide O1O dated 29.04.2010 had appropriated the disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such cases. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. vs. Collector-1999 (114) E.L.T. 371 (SC). He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CC Hyderabad vs. ITC-2005 (179) E.LT. IS (SC). 2.3 He further submits that based on the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court the department had issued a clarification vide Circular No. F.No. 275/37/2K CX 8A. dated 02.01.2002 and had clarified that for the refund of pre-deposit amount on receipt of favorable order refund applications under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not necessary and the same shall be processed on receipt of a simple letter from the person who has made suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits. He submits that in the case of subsidy for price ceiling, the principal of unjust enrichment is not applicable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector-1996 (83) E.L.T. 114 ii. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner -2011 (263) E.L.T. 698 (Tribunal) iii. Gobind Sugar mills Ltd. v. CC-2018 (363) E.L.T. 204 (Tribunal) In view of his above submission, he prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and that the refund be granted with interest. 3. On the other hand, Shri S.N. Gohil, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He filed written submission dated 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltimately the refund has to be given to the appellant only. Therefore, only on the ground that the application for refund was filed by CHA, refund cannot be denied which is otherwise due to the appellant. As regard the unjust enrichment, we find that though appellant have paid the Revenue deposit but the same was appropriated against the duty demand. Therefore, the Revenue deposit has been converted into duty. Moreover, Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that all the refund has to pass through test of unjust enrichment. Therefore, in the present case also unjust enrichment is very much applicable for granting the refund of duty. There is a subsequent development that after appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
