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 grants refund for Extra Duty Deposit on Mechanical seals import, aligns with precedents</h1> <h3>M/s SKF Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Bangalore</h3> M/s SKF Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Bangalore - 2017 (352) E.L.T. 355 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on 'unjust enrichment' principle for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid during import of Mechanical seals from related foreign suppliers.Analysis:1. Facts and Background: The appellant imported Mechanical seals from related companies and paid 1% EDD for imports, leading to provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on grounds of 'unjust enrichment', which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to appeal to the Tribunal.2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant contended that EDD was paid as a security deposit during SVB investigation, not as Customs duty, and hence, refund should be automatic upon finalization of assessment. They argued that EDD is not covered under Customs Act and Tariff Act, citing relevant Circulars and judicial precedents to support their stance.3. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue maintained that the appellant must meet all refund conditions under Section 27 of the Customs Act, citing a Supreme Court judgment on 'unjust enrichment'. They emphasized the need for proof that duty burden was not passed on and that the refund amount was accounted for properly.4. Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing submissions and cited judgments, the Tribunal found the appellant's case aligned with precedents stating EDD as a security deposit exempt from 'unjust enrichment'. Referring to a specific case, the Tribunal highlighted that the refundable amount exceeded the duty paid, justifying the refund claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's argument that EDD, being a security deposit, did not fall under 'unjust enrichment' principles for refund. By citing relevant case law and emphasizing the nature of EDD, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the lower authorities' decisions and granting the appeal with appropriate relief.
TaxTMI 