2015 (8) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arising out of sub-section (2) nowhere states that Section 27(1) was not applicable to refund arising under that section – Had intention been to oust test of unjust enrichment, there would have been overriding mandate in sub section (2) itself – Therefore sub section (1) and sub section (3) operate on their own field and all refunds undergo test by sub section (1) of Section 27 – This could be sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er order of Tribunal passed on 3-2-2000 in Appeal No. C/232/1999-NB {F.O No. A/75/2000-NB(DB) dated 3-2-2000} shall be granted in accordance with law meeting the tests of unjust enrichment. 2. While carrying out appellate direction, the authorities below required that the refund that arose has to undergo the test of unjust enrichment which is mandate of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he legislative intent of that section. Sub section (1) of the said section has bar against unjust enrichment for which no refund claims shall be allowed without meeting the test prescribed by Section 27(1) of Customs Act, 1962. Sub-section (3) of the said Act, while permitting the refund arising out of sub-section (2) nowhere states that sub section (1) of Section 27 is not applicable to refund a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X