9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .K. Jayaraman, JJ. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER Per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal No. 130/2004-CUS(B), dated 29th November, 2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Order-in-Original No. 121/2004 DC/ICD dated 10-8-2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, relating to refund of 1% EDD paid by them. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the findings in Paras 6 7 of the impugned order which are re-produced herein below :- 6. I find that the importers, M/s. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, are engaged in the manufacture of domestic water purifies in collaboration with their principals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Supreme Court decision in Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P. has been incorrectly made by the lower authority. It is a clear case of provisional assessment permitted under Section 18(1)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, where the proper officer had permitted the said provisional assessment with 1% of EDD and when the said authority after verification of the documents made available and on going through the information furnished, had accepted the declared transaction value vide Order No. F. No. S50/91/2001-SVB, dated 10-2-2003/26-3-2003, whereby enabling the party, the appellants to seek refund of the 1% EDD paid in addition, over and above the leviable duties of Customs. Hence, this is not a case where the appellants had paid duty through mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refundable. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I pass the following order : ORDER The appellants M/s. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, succeed in their appeal and are entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,56,958/-. 3. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order and contended that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyers and hence the refund is hit by unjust enrichment. 4. We have carefully considered the matter and perused the impugned order. We find that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct view that the amount deposited is more than the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
