9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various High Courts and Tribunal in various cases, one being COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [ 2008 (9) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] wherein it has been held that prior to the amendment dated 13.7.2006 in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable because the said principle has been incorporated only with effect from 13.7.2006 and has been held by the High Court to be prospective and not retrospective - thus, the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and denial of refund on this ground is not sustainable in law. Rejection on the ground of non-filing of the original document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was referred to SVB Mumbai Custom House, the imports were made provisional and appellant deposited 1% revenue and paid duty provisionally. The valuation of imported capital goods were ultimately decided by the Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 20.6.2006 in favour of the appellant and the said order attained finality as the department did not file any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The appellants filed refund of the revenue deposit and duty deposited by them at the time of importation. The original authority after following due process rejected the refund claim being hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. Both the authorities have relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MRPL vs. CC reported in 2011 (274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted vide Bill of Entry dated 8.11.2004 and the law as it stood at the time of filing of Bill of Entry is alone applicable to the assessment of Bill of Entry. Consequently, the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: Commissioner of Customs vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd.: 2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj.) Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: 2009 (235) ELT 629 (Tri.-LB) Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam: 2016 (343) ELT 613 (Tri.-Bang.) Commissioner of Customs vs. Indian Oil Corporation : 2012 (282) ELT 368 (Del.) Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai vs. Sayonara Exports Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (321) ELT Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Appellant in fact have appended photocopies of the relevant TR-6 challan and Bill of Entry along with refund application and they have also attached the Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that ₹ 11,17,320/- is shown as receivables under Loans, advances and receivables as on 31.3.2011. The appellant have also filed a affidavit of the declaration of indemnity for lost/misplaced challan. She relied upon following decisions to show that non-production of the original documents cannot be the basis for rejection of the refund claim. Sambhav Enterprises vs. CC, Cochin: 2011 (265) ELT 113 (Tri.-Bang.) CC vs. Shree Simandar Enterprises: 2012 (283) ELT 369 (Ker.) 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
