9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree that the dispute relating to valuation of the impugned Rig imported by the appellants has since been settled in favour of the appellants by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14-2-2005. The appellants had earlier made a deposit of Rs. 10 crores through a pay order and had given a bond for Rs. 50 crores for taking release of the impugned Rig while the dispute regarding valuation of the same was pending adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs. The bond for Rs. 50 crores has since been cancelled and the grievance of the appellants is restricted to non-refund of the deposit of Rs. 10 crores. 3. We find from the impugned order that the original authority has sanctioned the refund claim but she has credited the amount to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) = 2005 (3) SCC 738. 6. The learned SDR has also brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Jain Spinners Ltd. - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), in which it has been held that the refund of disputed amount deposited as per Court's order are to be treated as deposit of duty and subjected to doctrine of unjust enrichment. He also states that in the present case, the deposit was made pursuant to an order dated 31-10-2001 from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 7. We find that in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that doctrine of unjust enrichment to based on eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur view in the absence of the documentary evidence proving that the appellants have not passed on the burden of the deposit amount to M/s. ONGC, the lower authorities had no option but to credit the sanctioned refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 10. Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate for the appellants states that subsequent to the order dated 21-11-2005 passed by the lower appellate authority, they have approached M/s. ONGC on 18-1-2006 for a certificate that the impugned amount has not been passed on by the appellants to M/s. ONGC and the appellants have not received any reply from M/s. ONGC so far. However, Shri Shroff makes a statement before us that the amount involved towards the impugned deposit has been entirely borne by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
