9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Brief facts of the case as disclosed by the appellants are that M/s. D.M. Shah & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 7, Sooterkin Street, 1st Floor, Kolkata filed an application for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 1,16,419.00 in regard to importation of goods from abroad. The duty was paid on intimation that the goods had arrived and unless duty is paid the appellant would have no access to the place of storage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 419/- against the Bill of Entry No. 217670, dated 18-8-2000. The said claim was received in this Office as on 23rd March, 2002 and the duty was paid on 1-9-2000. The claim was rejected on the ground of limitation and on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, which was rejected by him. The appellants preferred the present appeal. 3. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 23rd March, 2002 submitted the documents as per list enclosed with the letter. The Assistant Commissioner totally ignored the facts of the case and rejected the claim on the basis of limitation and on unjust enrichment. He submits that the claim was filed within time. He, further, submits that the provisions of Section 27C or 27D of 28C has no application in the instant case since the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal may kindly be rejected. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Advocate and the ld. JDR and also perused the records. In the present case, the appellants filed the refund claim of 31st October, 2000. The duty was paid on 19th August, 2000. Therefore, the refund claim was made within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty. It is admitted by the Department that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay any duty. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to refund of duty. The question of unjust enrichment does not arise. Since the goods were never cleared by the appellants, the question of passing of duty to the consumer does not arise. The lower authorities failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. Appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, I set aside the Order-in-Original and the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
