2015 (3) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port Regulation. At the time of importation of the impugned goods, the appellant made a security deposit and also paid the duty for clearance of the goods provisionally. Later on, the assessments were finalized. It was found that the security deposit made by the appellant is in excess of the duty payable by them. Consequent to it, the appellant filed a refund claim which was rejected on the premise that the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. 3. The ld. counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that as it is a case of security deposit at the time of clearance of the goods, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Z....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In that case also considering the decision of the Apex Court in Allied Photographic India Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC), The Larger Bench of the Tribunal observed as under:-     "8. After analyzing the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of C CE, Mumbai-II vs. Allied Photographic Ltd. [2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC)], Hon'ble High Court in para -18 of the order in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. HINDALCO Industries Ltd. (supra) has held that there is distinction between making of a refund and claiming of a refund and that the amendment carried out in Sec. 18 (5) on 13/07/2006 cannot be held to be clarificatory and retrospective in nature. In para-21 of the judgment in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra) it ....