9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at M/S PETRONET LNG LTD. VERSUS CC AHMEDABAD [ 2011 (9) TMI 515 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] already considered the issue of Unjust Enrichment and held that in thisfact Unjust Enrichment is not applicable. In view of the fact that the amount of refund has been shown as receivable which is supported by Chartered Accountant s certificate there is absolutely no doubt that the incidence of duty paid on short landing of goods has not been passed on to any other person. Therefore, there is no case of Unjust Enrichment against the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely legal and in order which does not require any interference and hence, the same is upheld, revenue s appeal is dismissed. From which date the interest on refund is applicable? - HELD THAT:- From the judgment in MANISHA PHARMO PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2020 (11) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT] , it can be seen that Landmark judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] was followed and held that the interest on refund is payable from 3 months of date of filing refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue s appeal. 2.1 As regard the assessee s appeal, he submits that as per the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India 2010 (262)E.L.T.165(Guj.) the assessee are entitled for the interest only from the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order whereby, the refund was allowed. 3. Miss Mannat Waraich, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee in respect of the revenue s appeal submits that in the appellant s own case in respect of the same refund, the Tribunal in the case reported at Petronet Lng Ltd 2012 (275) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Ahmd.) already decided that the Unjust Enrichment is not applicable in respect of the duty paid in case of short landing of goods and set aside the order whereby, the amount of refund was ordered to be credited into Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. She further submits that the appellant have shown the amount as receivable in their books of accounts and a Chartered Accountant s certificatewas also produced to this effect. The sanctioning authority after rejecting the Stay application of the revenue in the present appeal, given a detailed finding, whereby, it was conclusively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2014, 17.10.2014, 03.11 2013, 27.11 2014 and dated 02.12.2014 written to claimant to produce provide B/E wise details of refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,06,87,123/- and to provide copy of Chartered Account Certificate alongwith breakup of Sundry Debtor's etc, but instead of submitting the same, the claimant vide their letter dated 04.12.2014 (forwarded through Supdt., CH, Dahej) again submitted the copy of C A. Certificate dated 18.06.2012 reflecting the quantum of customs duty of Rs 1,49,39,966/ only along with its breakup and claimant also requested to process the refund claim of Rs 1,49,39,966/- only alongwith interest. This office vide letter dated 15.12.2014, dated 29.12.2014 dated 06.01.2015 again requested to claimant to provide breakup of Sundry Debtor's as per balance sheet and Bill of Entry wise details/annexure, from where the refund claim of Rs. 2,06,87,123/ has arisen. The claimant vide this their letter dated 05.02.2015 again submitted the copy of C. A. Certificate dated 18.06.2012 reflecting the quantum of customs duty of Rs 1,49,39,966/- only and requested to process the refund claim only to the extent of Rs 1,49,39,966/- alongwith interest. This office v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals). We find that as regard the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt. Ltd(supra) the same was appealed against before the Hon ble Supreme Court vide its judgments reported as Manisha PharmoPlast Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India 2020(374)E.L.T.145(S.C.) set aside the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment and allowed the assessee s appeal, the said judgment is reproduced below:- Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The High Court, vide impugned judgment [2010 (262) E.L.T. 165 (Guj.)], has denied relief of statutory interest payable to the appellant under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX.8, dated 1-10-2002 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi. The High Court noted that the appellant had filed application for refund on 30-12-1999 but denied the relief of interest on the finding that the adjudication of the claim attained finality only after dismissal of the proceedings before the High Court on 18-7-2005; whereas the Department had already paid refund amount to the appellant on 26-6-2005. These facts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
