2006 (10) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r]. This is an appeal by M/s. Arvind G. Daftary against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai vide Order-in-Appeal No. 121/2005 MCH, dated 22-3-2005. By the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning refund of Rs. 1,68,951/- by way of remand to verify the clause of unjust enrichment properly. 2. H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 21-7-2003 directed the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration as to whether the higher rate of duty was passed on to its customers. (d) The Assistant Commissioner of Customs sanctioned the refund claim vide his Order-in-Original No. S/26 (R)-07/97-2 B II, dated 25-11-2003 after recording his findings which are as follows : 1. The imported goods were neither sold to any one .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and subsequently in cost of construction. 4. In this particular case, I find that the imported material has been used in the importer s own construction work. The materials have not been used directly but only for purposes like stentering. After repeated use the same were reportedly given to the workers free of cost to be used as fuel. It is claimed that the importer, who are engineers and con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X