2013 (3) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ally assessed without extending the benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 36/96-Cus., dated 27-3-1996. The respondents made a cash deposit of Rs. 6,05,000/- in connection with the provisional assessment. The Tribunal vide Final Order No. 846/2007 dated 9-7-2007 reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 61, decided the case in favour of the assessee holding that they were eligible for the exemption. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order, the original authority vide Order dated 7-11-2008 sanctioned the refund. However, he held that the assessee has not crossed the bar of unjust enrichment and accordingly ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue was bound by law to make the refund without any claim being required to be made by the assessee for the period prior to 12-7-2006. He also relies on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 629 (Tri.-LB), wherein it has been held that prior to 13-7-2006, refund which became due on final assessment was to be made without the claim being submitted by the assessee and, therefore, did not attract the provision of unjust enrichment. He further relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar v. Tulsidas Ramjibhai reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.-Ahd.). 5.2 He also submits that the amount....