2016 (1) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The brief facts are that the appellant imported capital goods valued at Rs. 2,87,67,110/- for manufacture of Parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generators against EPCG License dated 23-6-2000. The duty forgone for such import was Rs. 1,41,91,098/-. The FOB value for the License was Rs. 29,74,93,020/-. As further imports were not made, the appellant approached the DGFT for finalization of the export obligation, against the said license. Accordingly, the DGFT vide letter dated 9-12-2004 directed the appellant to pay customs duty with interest for the shortfall of export obligation. The appellant calculated the interest payable @ 24% instead of 15% as provided in para 5.14 of Handbook of Procedures and thus, they have deposited an exce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....could not be automatically accepted if it was not supported by relevant Sales Bills or related documents. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that the appellant had not produced any other authenticated documents such as audited Balance Sheet or Profit & Loss Account, showing the excess amount paid by them as "recoverable or receivable". 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant urges that during the pendency before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before the adjudicating authority, there was ongoing dispute between majority and minority share holder. The matter was pending before Company Law Board in C.A. No. 484/2007 and the balance sheet could n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as such, the provision of unjust enrichment is not attracted. As such, he prays for allowing the appeal. 5. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. He further states that in the Bond, rate of interest is normally mentioned as 24% and as such the appellant have rightly paid the interest @ 24% and there is no case of excess payment of interest. Learned DR also relies on the ruling relied upon in the impugned order in the case of Eltech Enterprises (supra), wherein it was held that C.A. certificate cannot be arbitrarily accepted which is not supported by any other corroborative evidence. Similar view has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court In the case of Commissioner of Customs v. BPL Ltd. in C.M.A. No. 344 of 2009 be....