TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the delay is of only 17 days, same is condoned. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant has filed BE No. 7888950 dated 07/9/2012 for import clearance of one unit (8) of Escalators for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation. The assessable value of the goods declared was $66606.66 CIF. The goods are meant for Metro Rail Project. The subject bill of entry was assessed and the total duty payable was Rs. 82,78,686/-. The importers have been regularly clearing their goods at ICD and paying their duty manually till 16.09.2012. However, consequent on the switching over to e-payment in respect of duty exceeding Rs. 1 lakh with effect from 17.9.2012, they had to mandatorily pay the duty online. The importer paid the duty online throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il correspondence with ICEGATE. The refund claim is filed under Section 27 (1) (a) of Customs Act, 1962 and interest clause will be applicable. The claim has been received at ICD on 19/10/2012. Hence the 3 months time limit ends on 18.1.2013. Further, the amount involved in the refund claim is Rs. 82,78,686/- which is over Rs. 5 lakhs and hence pre-audit concurrence has to be obtained before sanctioning the claim. 5. As they had not submitted original documents, and Chartered Accountant certificate for unjust enrichment clause, a Deficiency Memo was sent to them vide this office letter dt. 30/10/2012. They filed their reply dated 02.11.2012, they submitted the original bill of entry, and have also stated that the imported goods were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all. The original adjudicating authority had acted correctly. It has to be noted that refund claim has been made immediately and refund received within the financial year and therefore, question of showing it as expenditure would not arise at all. It cannot also be shown as receivable since the original adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 14/12/2012. The importation took place on 7/9/2012. The second payment was made on the advice of department and because of the helplessness of the department to connect payment earlier made to the Bill of entry and make the computer system facilitate clearance of goods. In such a situation, requiring the appellant to prove unjust enrichment is against the spirit of law. Learned Co....