9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the Board's circular and the circular makes it abundantly clear that it is only a cash security and not any other payment. If that be so, the provisions of Section 27(2) which applies to duty and interest thereon, does not apply to cash securities made. In favour of assessee - C/426/2012 - A/176/012/SMC/C-IV - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - P.R. Chandrasekahran, J. Appellant Rep by: Shri Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports. The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of 2% security deposit which they had paid. The same was sanctioned but ordered to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited is only a cash security and not duty as evident from the circular issued by the CBEC and hence the issue of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of he present case. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Pride Foramer vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2006 (200) ELT 259 (Tri-Mum) wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is only a cash security and not any other payment. If that be so, the provisions of Section 27(2) which applies to duty and interest thereon, does not apply to cash securities made. Therefore, the question of providing unjust enrichment would not arise in the case of refund of cash securities. 6. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
