9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Review under wrong provisions of law 2. Unjust enrichment in refund claim 3. Applicability of amended Section 27 of the Customs Act Review under wrong provisions of law: The Collector of Customs, Chandigarh filed an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal rejecting the department's appeal and upholding the refund sanctioned to the respondent. The Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on grounds related to the provisions under which the review was conducted. The appellant argued that citing a wrong provision does not affect the legality of an order, citing the Supreme Court decision in J.K. Steel v. UOI. The respondent contended that the review was under the wrong provision and that the refund was finalized before the amendment regarding unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the Collector had the authority to review the order, even if the provisions cited were incorrect. The review order was passed within the permissible time, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal on this ground. Unjust enrichment in refund claim: The Collector (Appeals) noted that no law regarding unjust enrichment existed at the time of the refund payment. The amended Section 27 of the Customs Act stipulates conditions for refunds. The Tribunal found that since the refund had already been paid to the respondents and the amount was not available with the department, the amended provision did not apply. The appeal challenged the order based on unjust enrichment after the refund had been paid, which was not admissible. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case to support the decision that the refund, once paid, could not be subject to the amended provision regarding unjust enrichment. Applicability of amended Section 27 of the Customs Act: The Tribunal clarified that the amended Section 27 did not apply to a refund already paid before the amendment. Refunds paid before the amendment, where the amount was not available with the department, were regulated under the provisions in force at the time of payment. The Tribunal differentiated cases where refunds were pending and cases where refunds were already paid. The appeal sought to recover the refund based on unjust enrichment, but since the refund had already been paid, the amended provision did not apply. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing relevant case law and the specific circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, emphasizing that the refund, once paid, could not be subject to the amended provision on unjust enrichment. The decision was based on the specific timing of the refund payment and the absence of the refunded amount with the department.
|
