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>Order Overturned: Case Sent Back for Re-Adjudication Due to Lack of Personal Hearing, Must Conclude in Six Weeks.</h1> <h3>M/s. Optiemus Infracom Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) & Anr.</h3> The HC set aside the impugned Orders in Original, which directed credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on unjust enrichment without a personal ... Refund - Unjust enrichment - appropriation of the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 27 (2) - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders dated 24.07.2023 are set aside to the limited extent and the matter is remitted to the competent authority for re-adjudication of the issue of alleged unjust enrichment and appropriation of the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 27 (2) of the Custom Act 1962. The competent authority shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner prior to passing the order, with regard to credit of the amount in Consumer Welfare Refund. Issues involved: Impugning Orders in Original directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund u/s unjust enrichment without personal hearing.Summary:The petitioner challenged Orders in Original dated 24.07.2023 directing the credit of refund amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on the principle of unjust enrichment without granting a personal hearing. The senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders contained apparent errors as no personal hearing was provided, and the documents submitted were misinterpreted. Specifically, discrepancies were noted in the treatment of customs duty refund amounts in the orders compared to the balance sheet of the authority. The petitioner argued that with a personal hearing, these errors could have been rectified, and other discrepancies could have been highlighted. Additionally, it was argued that the orders failed to consider the precedent set by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the Court. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, expressed willingness to offer a fresh opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the competent authority for re-adjudication concerning the alleged unjust enrichment and appropriation of funds to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The competent authority was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner before making any decisions regarding the fund credit, with a stipulated completion period of six weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
