TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the licenses. The Appellants, in compliance of the directions of the office of the DGFT, Mumbai, provisionally deposited Rs. 58,14,797.00 in respect Advance License dated 23.1.1995 and Rs. 33,89,799.00 in respect of Advance License dated 7.2.1995. These amounts included the interest. The amount calculated provisionally on the duty saved on exempt material to the extent export obligation had remained to be discharged under the said two licenses. The Appellants claimed that subsequently the DGFT extended time to discharge export obligation and the Appellants did export the goods manufactured from and out of the exempt material on which duty was paid by them at the insistence of the DGFT. In view of discharge of the entire export obligation under both the above referred to advance licenses, the Appellants claimed the refund of the above amount deposited them. The adjudicating authority rejected the both the refunds for non production of originals of bills of entry, customs attested invoices and packing list relating to imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals filed by the Appellants more or less on same grounds except that she accepts that the Appellants ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62 or the allied Rules. 4.2 Relying upon the following judgments it was argued by the Appellants that once the copies of the documents submitted evidencing the deposit of the amount of which refund is sought the refund cannot be denied on the alleged non compliance of procedural requirement of non-production of original documents. (i) Narayan NambiarMelothsVs Commissioner of Customs - 2010 (251) ELT 57 (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Vs Shree Simandar Enterprises - 2012 (283) ELT 369. (iii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon VsMarutiUdyog Ltd. - 2014 (309) ELT 554 (Tri Del) (iv) Sambhav Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - 2011 (265) ELT 113 (Tri-Bang) (v) Seth Pt Surat General Hospital Vs Commissioner of Customs (Acc& Imp), Mumbai - 2014 (308) ELT 756 In the present case, the Appellants argued that the goods were imported without the payment of duty under Notification No. 204/92-Cus dated 19 May 2002. It was argued by the Appellants that no duty was assessed or paid at the time of import. The scrutiny of original of the triplicate copies of assessed bills of entry and other import documents was therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... certifying that the Appellants had not recovered or passed the burden of payment to any of its customers or to any other party. The authorities below have not disputed the correctness of the certificate of the Chartered Accountant. 4.6 Relying upon the following judgments, it was argued that doctrine of unjust enrich is otherwise not applicable in the present case. • CCE, Chennai II Vs Saralee Household and Bodycare India Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (216) ELT 685 (Mad) • Pride Foramer Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2006 (200) ELT 259 (Tri-Mum) • Ashiqui Exports (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin - 2008 (221) ELT 67 5. The Learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities that the Appellants are not entitled to refund as they have failed to produce the original documents and these documents are relevant for the purpose of the grant of refund. He further contended that the Appellants have failed to show that incidence of the amount of which refund is claimed is borne by them. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and carefully examined the records. We find that the only question that is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground of non production of originals of triplicate bills of entry and customs attested invoices and packing list cannot be sustained. 6.3 We further find that department has admittedly logged in the DEEC book both for imports and exports. At the time of logging of DEEC book for the exports effected by the Appellants, the proper officer could not have entered the details without the relevant documents produced before the appropriate officer who did the logging of the documents including customs attested invoices and customs attested packing list and bills of entry. We find, further considerable force in the contention of the Appellants that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise and the Appellants have not passed on the incidence of the amount claimed as refund to any one else. 6.4 There is no dispute that the goods were imported under the Advance License and exemption under Notification no.204/92 dated 19 May 1992 was claimed by the Appellants at the time of import. The Advance License and the said Notification require actual user of the imported goods in the manufacture of exported goods. There is no nothing on the record and it is not even the case of the....