9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese goods are not freely importable and hence confirmed additional Customs Duty liability and imposed redemption fine and penalty on the appellants which was paid. Both the appellants aggrieved by such order contested to same and took the matter to the Tribunal. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in Order Nos. A-951-952/WZB/2004/C-II1 dt 20.8.2004 held in favour of the appellant. Consequent to such order of the Tribunal, appellant filed a refund claim of the amount of duty of the redemption fine and penalty imposed. The adjudicating authority directed the appellants to produce evidence of non-passing of the incidence of the amount, in respect which the refund was claimed. The appellants could not produce any evidence regarding the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of duty or any other amount appellant/assessee has to satisfy the doctrine of unjust enrichment. He submits that the appellant has not filed any evidence in support of their claim of having not passed on the incidence to the buyer, and refund claim has been rightly rejected, even if it is for redemption fine and penalty. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is undisputed that the appellants herein had succeeded in their appeal before the Tribunal. It is also undisputed that the said order has not been appealed. Tribunal vide its Order dt 20.8.2004 has set aside the impugned order holding that the appellant is not liable to pay duty, redemption fine and penalties. As regards, the refund of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the excess redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakhs and excess penalty of ₹ 1 lakh already paid by the appellant shall be returned to them without any further delay" It can be seen that the above reproduced portion that the issue involved in this case of J.N.P. Impex (supra) was the same, as is before me. 6. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the division bench, I find that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and I do so, to the extent they rejected the refund claim of the appellants on the question unjust enrichment in respect of redemption fine and penalty. The appellants claim for refund of the amount and redemption fine and penalty needs to be upheld and I do so. The lower authorities are directed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
