9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to which a person is not entitled. It has also been held therein that a person cannot claim or retain any undue benefit even in the absence of any statutory provision unless before claiming a relief of refund, an appellant shows that he has paid the amount for which the relief is sought and that he has not passed on the burden to consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss. Thus, we are of the view that the lower authorities cannot be faulted in this case for invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment while considering the claim for refund of the impugned security deposit. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 holding that the appellants have not been able to prove that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. The lower appellate authority has also held that the burden of proof in this regard lies on the appellants and that sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 equity, and hence irrespective of applicability of any specific legal provision, the said doctrine can be invoked to deny benefit to which a person is not entitled. It has also been held therein that a person cannot claim or retain any undue benefit even in the absence of any statutory provision unless before claiming a relief of refund, an appellant shows that he has paid the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, 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 appellants and the same has not been passed on to M/s. ONGC. In support, he also relied on a certificate dated 14-6-2005 from the statutory Indian auditors of the appellant-company certifying that the impugned amount of Rs. 10 crores was not passed on to M/s. ONGC. He also relies on a certificate dated 13-6-2005 given by the statutory French auditors of the appellant-company certifying that an amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
