2010 (4) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt on 5-9-2006 which read as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, refund claim made by the respondent is not covered by 'unjust enrichment'? 2. Whether the respondent has discharged its burden in the matter of passing on liability directly or indirectly to other person?" 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent assessee had imported certain machinery on payment of duty. However, it subsequently found that the said goods were exempted from customs duty by virtue of notification dated 2-6-1998. Therefore, the respondent-assessee filed an application for refund of the amounts mistakenly paid as duty. 4. The Deputy Commissioner [Refund] held that the application was in time....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment of customs duty when the assessment order was not modified or reviewed. He further submits that when the assessee had unjust enrichment in the context of the duty which had been paid by the assessee and was subsequently exempted, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there was no unjust enrichment on the part of the respondent-assessee. He therefore submits that the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the refund application has to be rejected as held by the Deputy Commissioner [Appeals] 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee while sup- porting the order of the Tribunal has also submitted that as against the order passed by the Commissioner [Appeals] no appeal was filed by the revenue with ....