https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260651 Cash security deposited at the time of registration of a project import contract was treated as a revenue safeguard, not as duty paid on clearance, so the refund machinery under the Customs Act and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in the same manner. Relying on a binding High Court ruling on an identical issue and the relevant Board circular, the Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's authorities as factually and legally different. The security deposit was therefore held refundable, and the objection based on credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was rejected. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2015 06:28:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260651 Cash security deposited at the time of registration of a project import contract was treated as a revenue safeguard, not as duty paid on clearance, so the refund machinery under the Customs Act and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in the same manner. Relying on a binding High Court ruling on an identical issue and the relevant Board circular, the Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's authorities as factually and legally different. The security deposit was therefore held refundable, and the objection based on credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260651