9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nery and Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, [2015 (5) TMI 768 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in the case of same assessee, has already held in favor of the assessee that prior to amendment of Section 18(5) of the Act with effect from 13.07.2006, the ground of ‘unjust enrichment’ of assessee cannot be invoked for denying the refund of custom duty determined and paid under the provisional as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to insertion of Section 18(5) of the Act by Act No.29/2006 only with effect from 13.07.2006. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-revenue Mr.K V Aravind, fairly submits that the controversy is no longer res integra as the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CSTA Nos.4/2011 and 12-15/2014, M/s Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, in the case of same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso may be in exception instead of crediting to the Fund, the said amount is payable to the assessee, if the said amount does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in (a) to (f) of the said proviso. One such instance where the assessee was not entitled to refund was where he had already passed on the burden of duty on the customer. That is, if it is refunded to him, it would be a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 247 (SC). Section 18 does not fall within any of those claims. By way of provisional assessment, the duty is paid subject to the condition that after final assessment, he would pay any additional levy and if the payment of duty is in excess of what is actually determined, then he would be entitled to the refund. To claim refund under Section 18 of the Act, the assessee was not expected to invoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
