2005 (12) TMI 335

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant is seeking refund of the duty paid under the first bill of entry. The advocate draws my attention to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 132/95, dated 23-9-95 where the Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the appeal of the appellant. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in that order as follows : I have carefully considered the appellants submissions and also gone through the case law cited. The point involved for decision in the appeal is whether a claim for refund of not landed goods filed before the Group A.C. through whose group duty had been assessed and collected can be treated as time barred by the other Assistant Collector who has been entrusted with sanction of such refund claims. In the instant case the appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claim has to be treated within time. In this regard I totally agree with the decision of the Appellate Collector of Customs , Bombay cited by the appellant. What the Assistant Collector of Customs for Air Cargo Complex ought to have done is to forward the claim papers of the appellant to the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraising Refund Section under intimation to the appellant. Hence, without going into the other points canvassed and the case laws cited I accept the appeal on this single point. The then Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order in original and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the refund claim on merit within 45 days of the receipt of his order. The Assistant Commissioner passes the order afte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he consignment has not reached the appellant, has paid the duty second time when the consignment has come and he has allowed the appeal of the party on the single point. I find difficult to agree that the grounds taken by the Adjudicating Authorities in the remand order and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his subsequent order that the refund claim of the party is not maintainable. If the Department has disagreed that the findings of the then Commissioner (Appeals) in 1995, they had a right to appeal but after Ten years they cannot dispute the findings of the then Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the findings of the then Commissioner (Appeals) quoted above, I find the party is entitled for refund. I find that the provisions of unjust enrichm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X