9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e admitted the refund claim of Rs. 1,51,467/- to the appellants but ordered it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had imported 45,000 pieces of Blank Video Cassettes vide Bill of Entry No. 123782 dated 9-5-2000. The said Bill of Entry was assessed on provisional basis, against a P.D. Bond and an ITC bond along with the Revenue Deposit of Rs. 1,51,467/-, which was paid against Challan No. 1884 dated 15-5-2000, R.D. No. 435 dated 15-5-2000. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally as there was doubt whether the imported goods were under OGL or restricted item at the time of import. A clarification was sought from the DGFT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount whereas in their case, the amount is revenue deposit and it has not passed on to the consumer. (iv) The ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the cases of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 281 (Tri-Bangalore) and V.R. Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (I) Mumbai reported in 2007 (217) E.L.T. 277 (Tri.-Mumbai) is applicable to their case. In these case laws, it has been held that the amount paid by the assessee (which is the revenue deposit) has not been paid as customs duty on imported goods but as only a deposit of extra amount; that the amount deposited is more than the duty amount and hence is refundable without the bar of unjust enrichment. 5. The learned S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... va Sheva reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 497 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Motor Industries Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 315 (Tri.-Bangalore) after satisfying itself that the amount of revenue deposit was not charged by the appellants therein to the Profit and Loss Account but included in the balance sheet as advance recoverable in cash or kind, has held that bar of unjust enrichment will not operate against them, once the amount of revenue deposit is shown as recoverable. I adopt the same route and remand the case to the adjudicating authority to verify this aspect. The appellants are directed to produce evidence to show that the amount of Rs. 1,51,467/- claimed as refund has been shown in their accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
