9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri S. Udaya Kumar, SCGSC, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : M. Sathyanarayanan, J.]. - The appellant is the respondent in Appeal No. C/45/2004, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (in short "CESTAT"), South Zonal Branch at Chennai and challenging the vires of the order dated 8-10-2004, has preferred this appeal. 2.&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon to furnish evidence to rule out unjust enrichment. Since the importer failed to furnish the same in spite of sufficient time given, the claim for refund made by the importer was rejected by the said official on 26-7-2003. 4. The respondent/importer, aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, under Section 128 of the Customs Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT. 5. Before the CESTAT, it was contended by the respondent herein that the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act is not applicable to the refund claim made by them. 6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the judgment reported in (2000) 2 SCC 705 = 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) - Union of India and others v. Solar Pesticides Private Ltd., and also the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s preferred this appeal. 7. This Court at the time of admission of this appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the appellate Tribunal has not committed an error of law in allowing the claim of refund of the duty of the Customs when the assessment of Bill of Entry was not challenged by the respondent or not? 2. Whether the appellate Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein are sustainable. There is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order passed by the CESTAT. There are no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 8-10-2004 passed by the CESTAT. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 11. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
