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>Rectification of Final Order on Unjust Enrichment Requirement</h1> <h3>Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal ordered the rectification of a mistake in the final order regarding the unjust enrichment requirement for a refund amount. The appellant ... Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - Held that:- The issue remaining unresolved was identified in paragraph 7 by the Tribunal as restricted only to ₨.9,90,790/- and ₨.58,822/- pertaining to bill of entry no. 692876 and no. 724215. In the light of the clear finding that follows of having complied with the test of not being ‘unjustly enriched’, we conclude that the recurrence of the phrase ‘minus ₨.9,90,790/- and ₨.58,822/-’ in paragraph 9 is was an error apparent on the record and which must be rectified. Application for ROM allowed. Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding unjust enrichment requirement for refund amount.In this judgment, the issue involved was the rectification of a mistake claimed to be apparent in the final order dated 17th July 2018, which disposed off an appeal against an order-in-appeal dated 18th August 2009. The mistake was related to the framing of the issue in dispute, specifically concerning the requirement of crossing the hurdle of 'unjust enrichment' for a certain amount out of the total refund amount. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the value expressed in the order did not align with the findings that confirmed the eligibility for the refund. The authorized representative for the respondent highlighted that the appellant had failed to offer segregation of the amount 'receivable' to demonstrate the inclusion of the refund amount. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, concluded that the issue remaining unresolved was limited to specific amounts pertaining to certain bill entries. The Tribunal found that the appellant had successfully overcome the test of not being 'unjustly enriched' for the specified amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed the recurrence of the erroneous phrase in the order as an error apparent on the record and ordered the rectification of the paragraph to allow the appeal and grant the refund amount within a specified period with interest as per the rules. The application seeking rectification was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
