9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case as recorded in Order-in-Original are that the appellant Seth PT Surat General Hospital, Surat had imported two sets of medical equipments i.e. Gastrointestinal Fiberscope for home consumption vide Bill of Entry dated 2-9-1989 and availed the benefit of customs duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988. Vide Order-in-Original, dated 18-2-2002, the claim of exemption was rejected and it was ordered to confiscate the goods and redeem the same on payment of redemption fine plus payment of duty and also penalty. The appellant paid the import duty of Rs. 5,23,039/- and being aggrieved by the order, filed an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal was pleased to remand the case back to the Commissioner for verify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of rejection by the Dy. Commissioner. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant had stated that there is no question of unjust enrichment as the appellant is a 100% charitable trust and machine imported was for its own use and consumption and not for sale. Further, the machine was imported in the year 1989 and put to use whereas the Notification providing the unjust enrichment condition came in year 1991. Thus, on this ground alone, the impugned order is not sustainable. Further, as per the appellant, there is no finding that it has transferred the machinery to anybody else and it was categorically recorded by the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-2010, pursuant to remand by this Tribunal, the Revenue has held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of exemption Notification and had allowed adjustment of the balance duty confirmed along with redemption fine and penalty and have allowed adjustment in its order. So far as demand of original document at this stage, is a colourable exercise of power in view of the admitted facts on record. Further, the appellant relies on the ruling in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Goetze India Ltd. - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 215 (P & H), where in the case of payment of tax made during the provisional assessment, it was held that there is no question of unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to refund under the Central Excise Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re only meant for verification of the refund claim. From the order of the learned Commissioner of July, 2009, it is admitted fact by the Revenue that the appellant had deposited Rs. 5,23,039/- in pursuance to rejection of his claim for exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., which was finally allowed by the said order in July, 2009 and adjustment of duty, etc. was done from the amount of the said deposit. It is also observed in the order in favour of the appellant that "balance amount to be refunded to importer on the basis of application to be made by the importer to the proper officer". In the facts and circumstances, there is nothing else to verify in law except the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which I hold is not applicable under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
