9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Section 27 is not applicable to the facts of the case and consequently bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. The same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Amtrex Hitachi App. Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 81 - CESTAT, MUMBAI). Therefore, following the decision in the case of Hitachi App. Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 81 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) I hold that the appellant is not required to pass bar of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter getting the Special Imprest Licence to import, they filed Bills of Entry and the goods were cleared. The appellant did not pay duty but the department asked the appellant to pay interest for the warehousing period as they were not having license during the period. The appellant paid interest under protest. Later-on they filed a refund claim of the interest paid by them for warehousing period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. In this case, it is not disputed that the appellant has paid the interest for the period of the goods warehoused as per Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, as per Circular No. 475/39/90-Cus VII dated 08.08.1990, provisions of Section 27 is not applicable to the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
