9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nrichment will not be applicable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/CROSS/20396/2017 in C/20579/2017-SM - 22542/2017 - Dated:- 24-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Appellant Shri Anthony Irineus Carneiro and Shri Manohar Niak, Consultants For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) dt. 17/01/2017 whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the Department against the Order-in-original. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed Bill of Entry No.72 dt. 31/03/2015 for the estimated bunk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) the claimant has produced CA certificate on the issue of unjust enrichment, which merits acceptance unless rebutted. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the doctrine of unjust enrichment. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly held that there is no concept of buyer and seller in the case where bunkers supply is made to the vessel on conversion of the same into coastal run. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly accepted the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant certifying that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imated duty leviable when ultimately the duty liability was finally assessed, at the time of conversion of vessel from coastal run to foreign run, the same was found to be less than the duty deposited by the respondent. The initial deposit of duty was on estimation basis and as such has been rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be a deposit. The same was a notional amount and the quantity for which the duty was paid was not consumed entirely in India and as such I am of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. Revenue's appeal is, accordingly, rejected. 5.2. He further relied upon the decision in the case of Venkatesh Karriers Ltd. Vs. CC, Jamnag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
