9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty, refund was granted. In the said judgment there was no conclusion to say that pre-deposit of amounts would be construed as duty. In fact the Tribunal did not go into the question at all. In the case before us, the payment of cash security was made in terms of the Board's circular cited supra and the circular makes it abundantly clear that it is only a cash security and not any other payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ables etc. under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. At the time of registration of contract, the Revenue authorities directed the appellants to make security deposit of Rs.17,54,240/-. Subsequently, as per the provisions of the Project import Regulations. The assessment was finalized and appropriate duty has been paid. Thereafter, the appellants filed application for refund of security deposit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO. C/5 and 37/2006- Final Order Nos. 115-116/12) The contention is that the tribunal in the above decisions held that as the cash security has been made in terms of Board's Circular for registration of the contract under the Project Import Regulations, provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable. 5. Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authority. 6. I find that the refund is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, continue to be exempted from furnishing the above cash security. In respect of Fertiliser Projects which are liable to Zero rate of duty, Commissioner are advised to take only a nominal case security not exceeding 0.5% of the duty foregone at project import rate subject to a maximum of Rs. 20 lakhs. 7. The assessment in respect of the goods imported by the appellants under the Project ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the payment of cash security was made in terms of the Board's circular cited supra 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. Therefore, the question of providing unjust enrichment would not arise in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
