9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/410/2007-SM - Final Order No. 20386 / 2017 - Dated:- 7-3-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the department against the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 whereby the Commissioner (A) has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported 2504.734 MT of cumene in bulk from USA vide Bill of Entry 20339 dated 6.3.2003 which was provisionally assessed and the goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty of customs. Thereafter, the importer filed a refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) on the ground that the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessments done before 14.7.2006 and the Commissioner of Customs (A) vide order dated 28.2.2007 set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal of the assessee with consequential benefit. The Commissioner (A) held that the appellant is a public sector undertaking under Central Government and based on the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Karnataka State Agro Corporation Ltd. reported in 2006 (202) ELT 47 (Kar.), the Hon ble High Court held that the State Undertaking cannot be brought under the bar of unjust enrichment and moreover, the appellants also submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries vs. UOI reported in 1997 (89) ELT (SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held that the burden of unjust enrichment would be applicable unless the claimant establishes that he has not passed on the burden to others and in this case, the assessee has already produced the certificate of CA which in my opinion is only to prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer. After considering the submissions of learned AR and perusal of the impugned order, I find no infirmity in the impugned order which is well reasoned and passed based upon the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court in the cases cited supra. Therefore, I do not find any me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
