9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and because of the helplessness of the department to connect payment earlier made to the Bill of entry and make the computer system facilitate clearance of goods. In such a situation, requiring the appellant to prove unjust enrichment is against the spirit of law. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has to prove that there was no unjust enrichment beyond any doubt. - Here the Commissioner is requiring an importer to prove beyond any doubt that there is no unjust enrichment when there is a clear case of double payment and the problem that has arisen in the computerized system of the department and inability of the department to help an importer not to make second payment. No importer would be happy to make the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the duty online. The importer paid the duty online through their SBI Siruthoshil Branch, Anna Nagar, Chennai (branch code 0080807) on 27/09/2012. After payment of duty pertaining to the subject Bill of entry, the status indicated in ICEGATE interface showed yet to pay and the amount was shown as ₹ 83,19,512/- including interest (System Error 3). The importers then approached ICEGATE helpdesk at New Delhi for matching the payment made on 27/9/2012 but were informed by helpdesk that they have to pay duty once again since there was no possibility of matching the first payment to the referred bill of entry. Considering the urgency of consignment which was required for the Bangalore Metro Project, the importer BMRCL once again made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, and have also stated that the imported goods were required for implementation of Bangalore Metro rail Project in Bangalore and no sale is involved and question of Chartered Accountant will not arise. They have also submitted original communication received from SBI towards payment of the duty amount now claimed as refund. 4. Taking note of the fact that double payment of duty happened because of the system error in ICES and the importer has made the second payment because of the advice given by ICEGATE helpdesk, the original adjudicating authority after considering the issue relating to unjust enrichment and detailed facts and circumstances, sanctioned the refund. The Revenue went in appeal against this decision. The Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is against the spirit of law. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has to prove that there was no unjust enrichment beyond any doubt. Even in murder cases, an offence is required to be proved only beyond reasonable doubt when a person can be hanged for the offence committed. Here the Commissioner is requiring an importer to prove beyond any doubt that there is no unjust enrichment when there is a clear case of double payment and the problem that has arisen in the computerized system of the department and inability of the department to help an importer not to make second payment. No importer would be happy to make the second payment and claim refund. For three months, more than ₹ 80 lakhs have been with the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
