2011 (5) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the provisions of principles of unjust enrichment as introduced w.e.f. 13.7.2006 in Section 18 of the Customs Act are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that that the adjudication order does not contradict the certification of a Chartered Accountant regarding unjust enrichment and not passing on the burden of duty and allowed the appeal filed by the importer.   4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents made import of goods and the Revenue ordered provisional assessments and the assessments were finalised in July 2007. In pursuance to the finalisation of assessments, the respondents file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e amendment held that the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable. Relying upon the above decisions, the contention of the Revenue is that, on the facts of the present case, as the assessments were finalised after the amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable. The Revenue fairly submitted that whether the burden of duty has been passed on, the presumption is that the same has been passed on, however, it is a rebuttable presumption. The Revenue also fairly submitted that this issue was not considered properly by the adjudicating authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals).   7. The respondents submitted that in the present case the assessment relates to the period prio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of Section 18 of the Customs Act. In the present case we find that the assessments were finalised after the amendment and therefore the ratio of the above decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the case of Tribunal s larger bench decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the respondent, the Tribunal after taking into consideration that the assessments were finalised prior to the amendment held that the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable.   10. On the contrary, we find merit in the contention of the Revenue, as the Tribunal in the case of CC, Ahmedabad vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, in a case where the assessments were finalised after the amendm....