9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. This stay petition has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 4-6-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order, directed to refund Rs. 29,52,167/- to M/s. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd., the respondent herein (in short M/s. HOP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund claim was admitted, vide Order-in-Original dated 11-10-2006, but the amount was ordered to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal 31-5-2007, remanded the case for de novo decision. Not satisfied with the de novo order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), M/s. HOPL preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inkage with the extra duty paid. (iv) The Charter rate for Sea Conquest was not influenced by the extra burden of duty borne by the vessel. 8. We find that M/s. HOPL are engaged in providing offshore supply vessel and other services related to shipping industry. They have been using the vessel to provide services to their clients and charging revenue to their clients for the service. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under current Assets only. Once the refundable amount is show as fixed assets, the incidence of duty stands passed on. The balance sheet produced by M/s. HOPL does not reflect the amount claimed as receivable. Comparative contract price for the identical vessel is no indicator that there is no unjust enrichment as uniformity of price may be due to various factors and it does not lead to the inev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
