9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n delayed refund rejected by the AC – held that - Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) have upheld the applicability of the exemption notification and only then the cause of refund has arisen. Even otherwise once the refund claim was pending in 1991, then as per 1st proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27, the claims were governed by the unjust enrichment and therefore while submitting the refund claim the importer was duty bound to submit proof that incidence of duty has not been passed on, which was not done by him on his own, but the documents were furnished in December 2006 and March 2007. – Interest not allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal further observed that under notification 231/83 requirement of essential certificate does not apply in case goods are imported against automatic licence and supplementary licence and since it has been brought to their notice that the licence submitted by the importer was an automatic licence and even end use certificate was procured the matter was remanded. The matter was thereafter re-adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner who again rejected the refund claim by holding that the licence submitted by the importer was valid up to 30-12-84 and it expired before the shipment of goods and therefore the concessional rate of duty under notification 231/83 was not admissible. This order was however, set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have been granted from that date. The revenue on the other hand contends that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly held that the provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable in case of refund pertaining to the period prior to 1991 as first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 lays down that where an application for refund has been made before the commencement of the Central Excise and Customs law (Amendment) Act, 1991, such application shall be deemed to have been made under this sub-section and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of such explicit provisions which lays down that the principles of unjust enrichmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the submissions. I find that it is an admitted fact that while submitting the refund claim no documents whatsoever were furnished and the appellant has before the Tribunal admitted that there has been delay in furnishing the documents. I have also gone through the refund claim submitted by the importer which simply states the CIF value, assessable value, and duty charged at the rate of 80% - 40% CVD - 12% and duty chargeable as per notification 275/84 and claims the excess as duty refundable. No grounds whatsoever have been stated for claiming the refund and how the benefit of notification 275/84 was applicable to him. The cause of refund does not arise unless the exemption benefit is upheld and the assessment is set aside. The T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
