TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority rejected 17 refund claims filed by the appellant, with respect to 17 assessed bills of entry on the ground that the assessments made on the bills of entry were not challenged by the appellant and that unjust enrichment is also involved. Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority relied upon the Apex Court's judgments in the case of CCE Kanpur Vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC)] and Priya Blue Industries Vs CCP [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)]. 2. Shri S. Suriyanaranan (Adv.) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that duty at the first instance was not payable. It was his case that it is not a requirement of law to contest the assessments made with respect to each bill of entry when the same i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 (26) STR 195 (Kar.) xii) Hind Agro Industries Ltd Vs CC 2008 (221) ELT 336 (Del.) Xiii) Veekay Prints Pvt.Ltd. Vs CC Mumbai-III 2010 (259) ELT 749 (Tri-Mum) 2.1 It was argued by the appellant that the issue of non-inclusion of bagging charges for packing of fertilizers after import for the earlier period was held to be non-includible in the assessable value as per CESTAT's Order No.A/99/WZB/Ahmedabad/07, dt.21.12.2006 in their own case (Customs Appeal No.1856 of 2003). Appellant filed written submissions and inter alia, relied upon the case law in the case of Kairali Granites Vs CC [2010 (255) ELT 239 (Kar.)] and enclosed a copy of Final Order No. A/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td 2012 (286) ELT 19 (Kar.) 4. Heard both sides and perused the case-records. In these appeals, following points are required to be decided. a) Whether appellant was required to challenge the assessments made on the bills of entry before filing refund of Customs duty paid, when the assessment made on the bill of entry for the earlier period was contested and a favourable order is obtained by the appellant. b) Whether unjust enrichment is attracted in the present case when final price of the goods is fixed by the Government. 5. So far as filing of refund claims without challenging the assessments made of on 17 bills of entry is concerned, it is observed that this issue is no more res-integra Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal or reviewed a claim for refund can be maintained. 5.1 In view of the above, there is no evidence brought on record that assessments made on the bills of entry of the appellant were contested by filing appeals before the appropriate appellate authority, or that appellant asked for any appellate order on the assessments made on the bills of entry. The case laws relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in view of the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, argument raised on this issue by the appellant is required to be rejected. 6. On the issue of unjust enrichment appellant, inter alia, has relied upon the case of CESTAT Delhi reported as Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Vs CCE Guwahati [2004 (172) ELT 216 (Tri-....