Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal allows appeal on refund claim pre-amendment, citing unjust enrichment doctrine in customs case.</h1> <h3>M/s NK. Overseas Versus CC Ahmedabad</h3> M/s NK. Overseas Versus CC Ahmedabad - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 356 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Provisional Assessment and Differential Duty2. Unjust Enrichment and Refund Claims3. Nature of Deposits and Pre-depositsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Provisional Assessment and Differential Duty:The appellant imported goods in 1998 and 1999, which were provisionally assessed by Customs. The goods were detained due to low declared prices, and inquiries were made to ascertain contemporaneous import prices. The appellant paid differential duties and provided bank guarantees for the provisional release of the goods. After necessary inquiries, a Show Cause Notice was issued, and the Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case, confirming differential customs duties. The amounts already deposited were appropriated towards the recovery of the differential duties. The appellant's appeal to the Tribunal resulted in a favorable order, leading to the filing of a refund claim.2. Unjust Enrichment and Refund Claims:The appellant's refund claim of Rs. 43.50 lakhs was sanctioned but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the amounts were pre-deposited during the pendency of proceedings and should not be subject to unjust enrichment provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the refund, holding that Rs. 20 lakhs was a pre-deposit not hit by unjust enrichment, but denied the refund of Rs. 17.5 lakhs on the grounds that it was not shown as 'receivable' or 'deposit with Customs' during the relevant period.3. Nature of Deposits and Pre-deposits:The appellant argued that the amounts were deposited 'Under Protest' during the provisional release of goods and should be considered pre-deposits, not duties. The Tribunal noted that Section 18 of the Customs Act, which deals with provisional assessments, did not include the clause of unjust enrichment until its amendment in 2006. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in the T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. case, which held that the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable to refund claims pertaining to periods before the amendment. The Tribunal also referenced the case of Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd., which supported the view that unjust enrichment provisions are not applicable to refunds arising from provisional assessments finalized before the amendment.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 17.5 lakhs was not sustainable, as the period involved was prior to the amendment of Section 18 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal further held that the nature of the deposit remained as a pre-deposit, even if it was appropriated against a demand, and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside.Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in court on 11.04.2014.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found