2003 (3) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Bidhan Chandra, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Krishna Kumar, Member (J)]. -  Heard both sides. 2.The ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted as under : The applicant has filed the above appeal against 1. Order No. 280/2004 MCH dated 21-5-2004, passed by the Respondent. By the said order dated 23-6-2004, the Respondent confirmed recovery of EDD of Rs. 24,92,9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovisional assessment. The ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate that the appellant had not filed any refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the question of passing incidence of duty under Section 27(2) for sanction of refund claim does not arise and as such the principle of unjust enrichment is not attracted. He also referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he crux of these decisions is that the principle of unjust enrichment is not attracted when the assessment is finalized. 3.The ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the refund has been filed under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the said section talks of adjustment. Therefore, the provisions of the said section are not attracted in the present case. As regards Section 27(3....