2014 (12) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R) JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeals against the impugned order for rejecting the refund claim on account that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported plant and machinery under Project Import Scheme and cleared the same provisionally on security deposit of Rs. 17.48 lakhs. After....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quest for adjournment is made. Considering the appeal is pending since 2008, same is taken up or final disposal. 4. In this case, admittedly, the appellant has not paid any duty at the time of importation of the goods. They have made a security deposit under project import scheme. It is not disputed that the said amount is not refundable to the appellant. Only dispute in these circumstances is ....