9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xed by Government – In present case also, admittedly price has been administered by APM regime and selling price has been fixed by Government – Therefore, facts of appellant’s own case are similar to facts of this case – In said circumstances, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to facts of these appeals – Appellant is entitled for refund claim – Impugned orders set aside – Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal No. C/618 & 619/2010-CU (DB) - Final Order No. 52311-52312/2015-CU (DB) - Dated:- 22-7-2015 - Hon ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial),J. For the Appellants : Shri S. Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeals against the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable nor logical. Therefore, appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment and they are entitled to refund claim. In these terms, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeals be allowed. 4. On the other hand Ld. AR opposes the contention of the Ld. Counsel and he relied on their own case wherein the final assessment has been done prior to 13.07.2006 but in the cases in hand the final assessment for Bills of entry has been done prior to 13.07.2006 at the relevant time and finalization of assessment. The provisions of section 18 (4 5) of Customs Act were not in force. Therefore, the said case law is not relevant to the facts of this case. He further submits that the appellant have contested the issue before the Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es as under: For the period prior to 25.06.1999 unjust enrichment will not be applicable for refund arising out of finalization of provisional assessment pertaining to period prior to 25.06.1999 even if assessments are finalized after 25.06.1999. 7. We also find that in appellants own case the issue came up before the Ahmadabad Bench of this Tribunal wherein the appellant sought relief of the excess duty paid during the period April 2003 July 2003 on the grounds that the excess duty paid is ₹ 6000/- per kiloliters while they are selling at administered price. But the refund claim was sought to be rejected on the grounds that the claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. In the said case after consideration by both the sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
