9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 on reference by Group VA of New Customs House, Mumbai, were subject to addition of US$ 145380 to enhance the assessable value to Rs. 41,28,26,922. The loading was accepted by the importer who then applied for a refund of the revenue deposit of Rs. 64,66,341. 2. The original authority restricted the claim to that proportion as pertained to seven of the consignments on the ground that the assessing group had dealt with only these; the importer was directed to apply to the other appropriate groups for the remaining amount. Even the amount of Rs. 13,11,426 that admittedly pertained to Group VA was sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 426. We find that the original authority limited itself to this portion on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to process deposits pertaining to bills of entry that were assessed in other groups. A refund claim under section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 is to be dealt with and processed by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner in charge of the Refunds section of a custom house. If the appraising group chose to deal with the application, it would appear that it was not considered as a refund claim but as an application for return of deposit entrusted to the group. In such an eventuality, recourse to the default provided for in section 27 of Customs Act, 1975 is inappropriate. We do not find any justifiable reason for the claim to have been handled by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd [2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj)] holding that '19. ... ....Thus in effect up to 12-7-2006 no provision existed in Section 18 of the Act which would permit revenue to invoke principles of unjust enrichment in relation to duty paid in excess, found to be so, upon finalisation of provision assessment under Section 18 of the Act.' 7. Per contra, Learned Authorised representative places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in United Spirits Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2009 (240) ELT 513 (Bom)] which, noting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] and distinguishing the decision in Commissioner v. Allied Photographics India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the records that the appellant in the present instance had been required, under the extant procedures, to deposit a certain sum of money with the customs authorities pending finalisation of the assessment. It is nobodys case that the amounts collected had been included in the duty levied before clearance of the goods on provisional assessment. To the extent that the said deposit is not included in the assessed duty, it would not have to be subject to the rigours of the hurdles that precede sanction and transfer of the refund to the applicant. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the records that the books of accounts of the appellant had capitalised the cost of imports only in 2005. Even at the time of capitalisation, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
