TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablished that the amount for which refund was sought for by the appellant is not a deposit but it is a duty. Therefore, the refund is clearly governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore, all the provision of limitation and unjust enrichment, etc is clearly applicable. Appeal is dismissed. - Customs Appeal No.10891 of 2019 - A/10028/2022 - Dated:- 13-1-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri P P Jadeja, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved is that whether refund of deposit made with reference to provisional assessment as a security to the bond executed by the appellant is governed by Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also issued by Customs vide letter No. BE No.F-08/10-11 dated 02.12.2011 wherein, it has been intimated to the appellant that final assessment was completed determining Customs Duty of ₹ 81,97,292/- and entire duty of ₹ 81,97,292/- paid on provisional assessment was adjusted and appropriated as finally assessed duty. Bond given was discharged as assessment was finalized and completed. The proper officers did not release security deposit on final assessment. Appellant filed written request on 24.1.2014, 05.06.2017, 20.06.2017 on completion of the final assessment of the said Bill of Entry. After requests and oral persuasions, SCN dated 07.11.2017 was issued to the appellant to clarify as to why claim of ₹ 16,39,458/- s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 there are two clauses for provisional assessment namely, (1) Importer executes bond in amount equal to difference between duty that may be finally assessed or re-assessed and the provisional duty (2) Importer deposit with proper officer such sum not exceeding twenty percent of the provisional duty, as the officer may direct. Accordingly, in this case provisional duty amount ordered was ₹ 81,97,292/- and other amount directed was twenty percent of the provisional duty i.e. ₹ 16,39,458/-. Thus, having deposited entire provisional duty ₹ 16,39,458/- was only security deposit and not a duty. Therefore, neither the time limit nor provision of unjust enrichment as provided under Section 27 will apply for returning of Security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 389 (Tri.-Mumbai) SKF TECHNOLOGIES (I) PVT LTD vs. CC- 2017 (352) ELT (Tri.-Bang) CALCUTTA IRON STEEL COMPANY vs CESTAT- 2017 (350) ELT 327 (Madras) S.E.L.I. SOCIETA ESECUZIONE LAVORI IDRAULICI S.P.A. vs. C.C. (IMPORT), MUMBAI- 2015 (327) ELT- 288 (Tri-Mumbai) AGRASEN ENGG. INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.(I), NHAVA SHEVA- 2015 (315) ELT 445 (Tri.-Mumbai) ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT)- 2012 (281) ELT 47 (Cal.) CC (EXPORTS) Vs. CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD- 2008 (229) ELT 212 (Mad.) He prays that the impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed by returning security deposit of ₹ 16,39,458/-. The learned counsel also filed an additional submission post hearing whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
