9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take was rectified by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2017, as per Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The stay application filed by the department against this order has also been rejected by the Tribunal. Further, we observe that the Appeal filed by the Department against the Order dismissed vide Final Order. Consequent to the Tribunal s Order rejecting the stay against the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the refund amount of Rs.4,87,208/- was sanctioned and paid to the Appellant on 23.12.2019. We observe that the Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned the refund as per the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which he is legally bound to implement. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice was issued to the appellant on 11.07.2018 alleging that the refund claim filed by them on 27.04.2018, on the basis of the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2017 was hit by limitation. The unjust enrichment issue was not raised in the Notice. We find that in the Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2019, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has examined the issue of unjust enrichment and given a finding that there was no unjust enrichment existing in this case. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any observation against the finding on the issue of unjust enrichment given by Assistant Commissioner in the said Order-in-Original. Since the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has already examined the issue of unjust enrichment and given a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med that they were eligible for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. However, while re-assessing the said Bills of Entry through RMS module, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the benefit of the said Customs Notification. Accordingly, the Appellant submitted that they have ended up in paying Customs Duty amounting to Rs.4,87,209/- on account of denial of the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. Since the Appellant felt that they were eligible for the benefit of the Notification 46/2011, they filed refund claims before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which were rejected by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner. 2.2. The Appellant thereafter had filed appeals before the Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order set aside the Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2019 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-examine all the issues, including the issue of unjust enrichment afresh. 3.2. Aggrieved against the said order, the Appellant has filed this appeal. 4. In their grounds of appeal, the appellant submits that their eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. was not in question and it was the Assessing Officer s mistake that they were not allowed the benefit of the said Notification; accordingly, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the Order dated 02.03.2017 has allowed re-assessment within the meaning of Section 154 of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal. Further, we observe that the Appeal filed by the Department against the Order dated 02.03.2017 has also been dismissed vide Final Order No. 75019 of 2024 dated 08.01.2024. 7.1. Consequent to the Tribunal s Order rejecting the stay against the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the refund amount of Rs.4,87,208/- was sanctioned and paid to the Appellant on 23.12.2019. We observe that the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has sanctioned the refund as per the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which he is legally bound to implement. Thus, we observe that there is no infirmity in sanctioning the refund by the Assistant Commissioner. 7.2. However, the Show Cause Notice dated 11.07.2018 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the refund claim filed by them on 27.04.2018, on the basis of the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.03.2017 was hit by limitation. The unjust enrichment issue was not raised in the Notice. However, we find that in the Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2019, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has examined the issue of unjust enrichment and given a finding that there was no unjust enrichment existing in this case. We observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any observation against the finding on the issue of unjust enrichment given by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner in the said Order-in-Original. Since the Ld. Assistant Commissioner has already examined the issue of unjust enrichment and given a finding on the issue and there is no con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
