2010 (9) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the consignment was examined by the Customs Authorities and on such examination, it was found that the goods are short landed. The same was in the knowledge of the Customs Authorities. Later on, the respondent filed the refund claim on 22-2-2009 for the refund of the amount paid by them as per the assessment done on the bill of entry on 15-5-2008 and the duty deposited on 17-5-2008. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the respondent had not submitted the documents required to satisfy himself whether the duty incidence has not been passed on to the customers. In other words, whether the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment or not. As per Section 27(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and he also held tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case, no assessment was done by the customs authorities after examination of the goods by them, which is apparent from the examination report. It was a case of short landing of goods and as held by this Tribunal, in a series of decisions, that in case of short landing of goods duty paid on the goods is not the duty but it is a deposit. He further submitted that on deposit, there is no bar of limitation as well as unjust enrichment. Hence, the impugned order is sustainable and the appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard both the sides. 7. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides, I....