2005 (7) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2-Cus., dated 16-10-2002. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellants imported Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Unit on payment of duty. However, they found out that the item is exempted from Customs Duty vide Notification 23/98-Cus., dated 2-6-1998 (Sl. No. 24 List 23 Item 10). Therefore, they filed a refund claim for the refund of the amount wrongly paid. The Deputy Commissioner (Refun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri R.N. Vishwanath, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. We have considered the records of the case carefully. The original authority has given a finding that the refund claim is within time and not hit by unjust enrichment. This finding of the original authority that the claim is not hit by unjust enrichment has not been appealed against .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e expenditure including the Customs duty, is borne by the company; that the whole or part of the expenditure is neither charged to nor recovered from any customer or any party or any manufacturer as the sterilizer was installed in the plant premises for captive use. On a very detailed examination, he has come to the conclusion that the refund claim is not hit by unjust enrichment. The Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X