2020 (3) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r who certifies the annual accounts of the importer, that the burden of 4% SED has not been passed on by the importer to the buyer was sufficient for satisfying the principals of unjust-enrichment. Such requirement was fulfilled by the appellant and therefore the present ground are in violation of circular No.6/2008-Cus. It is repeatedly held by the Hon ble Supreme Court and other Judicial Auth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sue involved was in relation to refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. He has submitted that the litigation policy did not cover refund for the period prior to 04.04.2018 and period after 25.05.2018 and therefore, the ROM may be allowed. After noting that the respondent is absent and after going through the record of the case, I note that the appeal was filed on 31 Octo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r was sufficient for satisfying the principals of unjust-enrichment. Such requirement was fulfilled by the appellant and therefore the present ground are in violation of circular No.6/2008-Cus. It is repeatedly held by the Hon ble Supreme Court and other Judicial Authorities that CBEC circulars are binding on the departmental offices, I note that inspite of clear instructions revenue has preferred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X