2014 (2) TMI 972

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Cus/Commr.(A)/AHD dt. 28.02.2007 and the appellant is accordingly precluded to file another appeal on the same issue. First appellate authority has also upheld the OIO dt. 17.03.2008 on merits with respect to refund of interest. 2. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that principle of unjust enrichment are not applicable to the refund claim of interest as per the following case laws:    i. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Amtrex Hitachi App. Ltd. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 292 (Tri. - Mumbai)    ii. Ashok Leyland Vs. Commissioner [2001 (138) E.L.T. 339 (Tri. - Chennai)]    iii. J.K. Synthesis Ltd. Vs. Collector [1999 (109) E.L.T. 669 (Tribunal)]    ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted), whereupon the lower authority shall examine the submitted information, especially in columns #15 & 16. The DCC may take up help of a chartered accountant, if necessary. If it is found that the claimed amount was always accounted for as a receivable ab initio right up to date, the appellant would have obviously proved that the incidence of interest was not passed on. The DCC shall then sanction the refund (recalculated if necessary) and pay the amount to the appellant. If it could not be so proved by the appellant, the claim may be rejected.    6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms." 4.1 It is evident from the above that Commr.(A) under OIA dt. 28.02.2007 did not finally hold that unjust enrichment is applicable i....