9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring different stages of manufacture; that the spin finish oil was assessed to customs duty under Heading No. 34.03 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act without extending the benefit of Notification No. 136/86; that at the time of removal of the goods from the warehouse, the respondents claimed classification under Heading 34.02 of the Tariff read with Notification No. 81/86-Cus. which was not agreed upon by the Department; that subsequently refund claims were filed by the respondents in respect of excess customs duty paid by them; that the matter ultimately reached the Appellate Tribunal which vide Final Order Nos. A/125-127/99-NB, dated 18-2-99 had held that the question of unjust enrichment did not arise in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms filed by them had been sanctioned by the Asstt. Collector vide Order dated 23-11-90, that subsequently the Appeal was filed against the refund granted by the Assistant Collector which has also been rejected; that the refund has been sanctioned to the respondents before the amendment of Section 27 of Customs Act; that in such a situation the provisions relating to unjust enrichment are not applicable; that a perusal of Section 27 of the Customs Act reveals that any person claiming refund of any duty has to make an application for refund of duty which shall be accompanied by the evidence that the amount of duty has not been passed on to any other person; that it is thus apparent from Section 27 of the Customs Act that the provisions of unj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he taxes/duties already refunded and in respect whereof no proceedings are pending before any Authority/Tribunal or Court as on this date. All pending matters shall, however, be governed by the law declared herein notwithstanding that the tax or duty has been refunded, pending those proceedings, whether under the orders of an Authority, Tribunal or Court or otherwise." Learned Advocate thus contended that in express terms, Section 27 of the Customs Act is not retrospective and it has to be interpreted in terms of language used thereunder; that as the application for refund of excess duty has been finally decided the matter cannot be regarded as a pending matter to which the provisions of amended Section 27 of the Customs Act will apply. He, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions of both the sides. We find substantial force in the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative that the refund of the duty claimed by the Respondent in Appeal No. C/620/95-N.B. has not attained finality as the matter was challenged first before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Assistant Collector's Order granting the refund and subsequently before the Appellate Tribunal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter did not end here also as the Tribunal also rejected the Appeal of the Revenue relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Ltd. The matter finally reached the Apex Court which has allowed the appeals holding that the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
