2014 (5) TMI 600

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the following question of law arises for consideration in respect of the impugned order of the CESTAT i.e.: "Does the principle of unjust enrichment not apply to the refund claimed in a provisional assessment" The facts are that the Assistant Commissioner (Special Valuation Branch) in this case accepted the value of the bills in respect of imported goods. The assessee claimed refund on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and upon which the CESTAT relied, has been carried by the revenue in appeal by special leave. The Tribunal in the order in this case observed as follows: - "Though Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended w.e.f. 01.08.1998 providing that in case of provisional assessment under Section 18, the limitation period of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Customs vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2008 (232) ELT 36 (Guj.), has held that since Section 18 of the Customs Act was amended w.e.f. 13.07.2006 and such amendment has been held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as not a clarificatory amendment, unjust enrichment principle would not be applicable to the refund claim arisen on finalization of Provisional Assessment during pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al assessment. In present case while the 1% extra duty had been paid during 2001-2002 to 2003-2004, the refund claim of this extra duty deposit had arisen on 20.01.2004 when the Assistant Commissioner passed the order accepting the declared transaction value and the refund claim had been filed within one year on 20.01.2005. Therefore following the judgment of the Larger Bench we hold that principl....