2009 (4) TMI 925

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : M. Sathyanarayanan, J.]. - The appellant is the respondent in Appeal No. C/45/2004, on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (in short "CESTAT"), South Zonal Branch at Chennai and challenging the vires of the order dated 8-10-2004, has preferred this appeal. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mporter failed to furnish the same in spite of sufficient time given, the claim for refund made by the importer was rejected by the said official on 26-7-2003. 4. The respondent/importer, aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellate authority found that even at the time of hearing of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent herein that the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act is not applicable to the refund claim made by them. 6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the judgment reported in (2000) 2 SCC 705 = 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) - Union of India and others v. Solar Pesticides Private Ltd., and also the case reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Chennai) - Gras....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f admission of this appeal, has formulated the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the appellate Tribunal has not committed an error of law in allowing the claim of refund of the duty of the Customs when the assessment of Bill of Entry was not challenged by the respondent or not? 2. Whether the appellate Tribunal has not committed an error of law in holding that th....