2013 (2) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R) Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against the Oder-in-Appeal No. 99(CRC-I)/2012(JNCH)-IMP-88 dated 17/02/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai - II. 2. The facts relevant for the case are as follows: 2.1 The appellant, M/s. IDMC Ltd., filed a Bill of Entry No. 123 dated 11/02/2004 for import of plate heat exchangers under project import. As per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Section 27(2) relating to bar of unjust enrichment applies only in respect of duty and interest if any paid on such duty. It does not applies to any deposits made by the appellant at the time of assessment. He further submits that the cash security equal to 2% of CIF value of the goods is made as per Circular No.89/95-Cus dated 09/08/1995 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....should be treated as deposit of duty and would be subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the case relied upon by Revenue the deposit was made pursuant o an order dated 31/10/2001 from the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Ultimately, in that case, inasmuch as the appellant has proved that he has not passed on the incidence of duty, refund....