2023 (2) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ident that the Appellant did not agree with revenue and have contested the SCN as well as the adjudication order. The amount deposited are found to be deposited under protest, ipso facto. Further, these amounts are also in the nature of pre-deposit - the burden of unjust enrichment is not attracted. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund - Appeal allowed.
MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Anubhav Goel, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Mr. Gopi Raman, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The issue in this appeal is whether the sanctioned amount of refund has been rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 6 March 2017 at investigation stage b) Rs. 17,01,269/- deposited on 20 June 2018 during pendency of appeal c) Rs. 23,82,573/- total amount of refund claim. 5. In response to deficiency memo dated 28.04.2020 and 2nd deficiency memo dated 18.08.2020, the Appellant filed reply and filed the documents as requisitioned. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the bank confirmed the deposits of Rs. 17,01,269/- and Rs. 6,81,304/-. Further, Appellant has submitted CA Certificate certifying that clause of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Vide Order-in-original dated 31.12.2020, the refund claim was adjudicated on contest observing that the amount is found to be refundable but the Appellant have not satisfied as to the bar of unjust enrichm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal is rejected. 8. Being aggrieved the Appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Anubhav Goel, Chartered Accountant urges that admittedly, the amounts under refund were deposited partly during investigation, after more than 2 years of import of the machinery and partly during pendency of the 1st appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this view of the matter, the amounts had been deposited by way of pre-deposit. Admittedly, Appellant have not sold the imported machines nor cleared the same, hence, there is no way by which the Appellant could have passed on the burden of custom duty. Further, the clause of unjust enrichment is not attracted in case of a deposit during investigation or pre- deposit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X