TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rectifies Final Order to grant shipping agent refund on duty amount; unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable.</h1> <h3>ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR</h3> ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 275 (Tri. - Ahmd.) , 2017 (49) S.T.R. 26 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues: Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order, Application for refund of duty amount, Doctrine of unjust enrichmentRectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order:The case involves an application for the rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order. The appellant sought rectification based on the Order-in-Appeal No. 26/Commr(A)/JMN/2011 and the refund amount due to them. The Tribunal allowed the rectification, modifying the Final Order to address the appellant's contentions regarding the refund amount.Application for Refund of Duty Amount:The appellant, a shipping agent, filed an appeal seeking a refund of duty amount after seeking conversion of a vessel from foreign run to coastal run. The duty paid by the appellant was finalized, leading to an amount due for refund. However, the original adjudicating authority ordered the refund amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:The appellant contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to their case, as they had paid a notional duty deposit at the rate of 110% of the duty after provisional assessment. They cited relevant Board circulars and submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate to support their claim. The Tribunal referred to past judgments and held that in cases where the duty deposited was on an estimation basis and found to be less than the final duty liability, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. Citing precedents and expert opinions, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund as the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order, the application for a refund of duty amount, and the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the context of the appellant's case.
TaxTMI 