9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not applicable and therefore, duty was not required to be assessed on the basis of transaction value and required to be assessed on the basis of tariff value fixed by Central Govt. – Thus, assessees are entitled to refund provided the conditions of Section 27 are fulfilled - Commissioner (A) has already held that claim was submitted in time, but neither original authority nor Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bill of Entry on the basis of transaction value whereas they were supposed to pay the duty as per tariff value fixed by the Central Govt. and in the refund claim, they sought the refund of differential duty paid by them. The refund claim was examined by the Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the claim vide order dated 10.08.2010. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of transaction value as per Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I notice that the duty of customs was payable on the tariff value fixed by the Govt. under Sub section (2) of Section 14 of the Act which reads as under:- 2. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (1), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the original authority for examination of refund on the principles of unjust enrichment as applicable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. (Pronounced Dictated in open Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
