9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e form of security and the doctrine of ‘unjust enrichment’ is not applicable in the case of refund of EDD - appeal allowed. - C/21597/2014-SM - Final Order No. 20795/2016 - Dated:- 20-9-2016 - Shri s. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 423/2013 CUS (B) dated 13.11.2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case is that the appellant was importing Mechanical seals from their related company, M/s S.K.F. Sweden and their associates companies. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted that EDD was paid on pending investigation by SVB and hence, the refund has to be sanctioned automatically on finalization of provisional assessment by SVB without even an application for refund. He also submitted that EDD is not duty of Customs as per Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is not charged / collected as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He also submitted that once it is proved that EDD is in the nature of security deposit with the Department then the principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable for refund of the same. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions : (i) C.C., Chennai Vs. Minerva Trade Links (P) Ltd. [2009 (233) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this Tribunal in the Revenues appeal has held in Paragraphs 3 4 as under : 3. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order and contended that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyers and hence, the refund is hit by unjust enrichment. 4. We have carefully considered the matter and perused the impugned order. We find that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a correct view that the amount deposited is more than the duty amount and the same is refundable. We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
