9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereunder the value declared by the appellants was accordingly finally assessed. Thereafter, the appellants filed a claim for refund of Rs. 72,00,432/- (amount of duty paid on SVB loading) on 16-4-99 and submitted documents in support of their refund claim on 21-5-99. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim of Rs. 8,05,311/- as inadmissible under Section 27 of the Customs Act and sanctioned the remaining amount of Rs. 63,95,121/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act but directed credit of this amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that grant of refund to the appellants would amount to unjust enrichment since the appellants had failed to prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to their buyers. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the lower authorities and further submits that in the event of refund being held to be admissible, the claim for Rs. 3,14,557/- may be verified with reference to the original bill of entry. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the bills of entry on which the duty amount claimed as refund was paid was assessed provisionally; that the goods were cleared after SVB loading pending enquiry into valuation aspect of the goods; that the case of SVB was decided on 29-4-98 by accepting the value as declared by the appellants and that the bills of entry were finally assessed without loading. There is also no dispute that the claim for refund of Rs. 63,95,121/- is admissible to the appellants on merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion, namely applicability of the parallel provisions relating to unjust enrichment in the Customs Act. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been made applicable by the Tribunal to refund of Customs duty, as seen from Final Order No. A-440/2000-NB, dated 25-4-2000 in the case of Hero Honda Motors v. C.C., New Delhi and in the case of Alcatel Modi Networks System [1999 (32) RLT 195 = 2000 (117) E.L.T. 522]. In the Alcatel Modi Networks System case cited supra, the Bench has held that there is no limitation involved in grant of refund as a result of finalisation of assessment, applying the ratio laid down in paragraph 95 of the Mafatlal Industries case supra. In the case of Hero Honda Motors, the Tribunal has held that the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
