9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 20.03.2009 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 12,34,323/-, which was deposited as being a cash security deposit made at the time of registration of the project. However, he credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund by holding that it attracts bar of unjust enrichment. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal of Revenue and submits that the imports made under project imports are governed by the Project Import Regulations 1986 and every importer has to register their contract before importation and also to execute necessary undertaking as per the regulations. She further submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carefully considered the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the grounds of appeal by the Revenue, we find that prima facie there is no dispute on the fact that the appellants were registered under the project import and cleared the plant and machinery and the same was finalised by the original authority after completion of the project. It is also not under dispute that the respondent while registering the project import with the jurisdictional customs have deposited cash security equivalent to 2% of CIF value of contract sought to be registered subject to maximum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the balance amount by way of bank guarantee. We find the Board s circular No. 89/95 dated 09.08.95, stipulates the requirement of cash security dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Revenue appeal was dismissed. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:- ".The issues involved in the present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Aristo Spinners Ltd., 2008 (226) E.L.T. 42 (Mad.) = (2008) 4 TNLJ 517 decided by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (KRPJ) is a party, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in which both of us are parties in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. M/s. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 504 (Mad.) = 2007 (3) TNLJ 532, wherein we have held that the bank guarantee cannot be regarded as equivalent to payment of duty and it is only furnished to safeguard the interest of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
