9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim for the period prior to 13-7-2006 which became due on final assessment is to be made without the claim being submitted by the assessee and that the provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable. Finally the appeal by the department is rejected - C/295/2010 - 373/2011 - Dated:- 25-2-2011 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, J. Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri R. Srinivasan, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 256/10 dated 5-3-2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This case has a long history and the matter is before the Tribunal for the third time. The Bill of Entry was filed on 29-11-96 for the clearance of microwav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consultant for the respondents refers to the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) in sanctioning the cash refund. He draws my attention to the fact that the Commissioner has held that refund arising from provisional assessment is to be covered by the provisions of Sec. 27 of Customs Act only w.e.f. 1-9-1998. He also submits that in respect of any refund arising out of provisional assessment for the period prior to 14-7-2006, the principle of unjust enrichment is not attracted. He relies on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 36 (Guj.) particularly paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 and submits that on finalization of assessment if an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alization of the provisional assessment. There have been amendment to the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 w.e.f. 14-7-2006 incorporating unjust enrichment provisions in respect of refund arising out of provisional assessment. 6.2 In the present case, the provisional assessment was finalized in year 2000. No doubt, the assessment was finalized holding differential duty was payable and the cash deposit made by the respondent was adjusted towards duty liability. Undisputedly, the said order finalizing provisional assessment was subject matter of dispute before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal dated 9-7-2007 is basically setting aside the assessment finalized by the lower authorities, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
