TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be rejected on the principles of unjust enrichment. While the petition was pending the Assistant Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) Refund Section : M & P Wing, Mumbai by his order-in-original dated 24th January 2011 sanctioned refund of Rs. 1,30,55,000/-, but directed that only Rs. 20,00,000/- be paid to the Petitioners and Rs. 1,10,55,000/- be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund of India as provided under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act 1962. The Writ Petition has been amended to challenge the order dated 24th January 2011. 3. The relevant facts are that during the year 1994 the petitioners had obtained advance licences from the Licensing Authorities for duty pre-import of the raw materials specified therein. The advanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rejection of KVSS application. The Writ Petition was disposed off on 23rd April 2009 by holding that the amount of Rs. 1,30,55,000/- paid by the petitioners was a deposit and not payment of customs duty and till the show cause notice is adjudicated, it cannot be said that the liability has ceased. This Court further directed the Commissioner to consider the KVSS application filed by the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereon. The SLP filed against the aforesaid order of this Court was dismissed by the Apex Court on 16th December 2009. Thereupon the Commissioner by his order dated 14th January 2010 allowed the KVSS application filed by the petitioners. Accordingly petitioners paid 50% of the duty demanded under the show cause noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osit and the demand raised after investigation stood settled by the order passed under KVSS, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the entire amount of Rs. 1,30,55,000/- deposited during the course of investigation. 8. It is further contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that when the amount was deposited by the petitioner No. 1 company and the same is evidenced by the payment challans, it is not open to the respondents to deny refund of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- merely because the said amount was deposited by M/s. Naraindas Dayaram a proprietory concern of Mr. Raaju Amarnani who was also a Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 company. 9. Mr. Ashokan learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner No. 1 company. In these circumstances, having found that the entire amount of Rs. 1,30,55,000/- is refundable, the officer could not have declined to release the amount of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- merely because the said amount is not shown in the books as recoverable when in fact the said amount was paid by M/s. Naraindas Dayaram for and on behalf of the company and M/s. Naraindas Dayaram has no objection if customs pay that amount to the petitioner No. 1. 12. In the present case, there is no question of applying the principles of unjust enrichment because, the company has not imported the goods under the advance licences. Goods were imported duty free by the persons to whom the advance licences were sold. Since the predecessor compan....