9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Non-submission of TR-6 challans and Bills of Entry - Appellant is directed to file the same before the refund authority after collecting it from the assessment group as stated by them in their letter dated 16.05.2016. Since the PD bonds has to be finalised and cancelled by the Department, it is for the Revenue to cancel the same and communicate to the concerned refund section. Unjust enrichment - Tribunal vide Final Order had clearly held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to the provisions assessments prior to 2006 before the amendment to Section 27 read with Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. In similar cases, this Tribunal [ 2023 (10) TMI 1460 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of documents. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority to process the refund claims needless to say an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the appellant. - HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Ashwini Nag, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI The appellant Cisco Systems India has filed this appeal against Order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 31.12.2014 and also held that unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessments prior to the date of amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, it is claimed that the appellant is eligible for the refund claim as per the finalization of the provisional assessment Order-in-Original No.693/2014 dated 31.12.2014. 3.1 She further submitted that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise since the period involved in this case is prior to 2006 and the amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inserted with effect from 13.07.2006. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mangalore Refinery Petrochemicals Ltd.: 2015 (323) ELT 484 (Kar.) and the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited: 2009-TIOL-484-CESTAT (Ahm-LB). 3.2 It is further stated that all the original documents such as Bills of Entry, TR-6 Challans, finalization of PD bond were furnished to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 14.10.2015 and these documents were available with the assessment group and vide their letter dated 16.05.2016 they had in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia) Ltd.: 2021 (376) ELT 65 (Mad.) holding that:- 4. In view of the aforesaid and having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that prior to amendment of law, by insertion of Section 18(3) in the Customs Act, the Revenue could not demand any interest on the differential duty assessed upon final assessment where the goods have been cleared on provisional assessment under Section 18(1) of the Act. The retrospective levy is not intended and the amendment in law is a substantive provision for making a provision for levy of interest in the present case. Therefore, for a period prior to 13-7-2006, such levy of interest cannot be imposed on the Assessee. Therefore, being in respectful agreement with the view of the Gujarat High Court, we do not find any merit in the present appeals filed by the Revenue and the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is correct. 5.1 We also find that Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Goyal Traders: 2014 (302) ELT 529 (Guj.) have followed the above decision and have observed as follows: 17. In the present case, we find that prior to introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act in the present form, there was no liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready passed on the burden of duty on the customer. That is, if it is refunded to him, it would be a case of unjust enrichment. Such a provision was conspicuously missing in Section 18 of the Act. It is by way of amendment which came into effect from 13-7-2006 the said provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act was added to Section 18 by way of sub-section (5). If for a claim under Section 18 of the Act, if an assessee has to putforth a claim under Section 27 of the Act, there was no necessity for the parliament to introduce sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act by way of subsection (5) of Section 18 of the Act. It only demonstrates Sections 18 and 27 are merely exclusive. Section 27 applies to a case of constitutional levy, illegal levy or a levy by mistake as held by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). Section 18 does not fall within any of those claims. By way of provisional assessment, the duty is paid subject to the condition that after final assessment, he would pay any additional levy and if the payment of duty is in excess of what is actually determined, then he would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
