TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IAL) Shri P. Rama Krishna Adv, for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner(AR), for the Respondent. [Order per: SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S.,] The issue involved in all these appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed by this common order. 2. At the outset, it has to be stated that a preliminary was raised by the Department that the appeals are not maintainable as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... new appeals, the appellants have cured the procedural defect. However there is a delay due to the above stated reason in filing the present new appeals. At the cost of repletion, it has to be stated that the issue posing for consideration in these new two appeals were also contained in the earlier appeals filed by the appellant. Therefore following the proposition that the substantive right canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and appellant had furnished PD bonds and also executed Bank Guarantees. The said Bank Guarantees were encashed by the authorities on 19/08/1998 and deposited the same in favour of Chief Accounts Officer, Customs, Hyderabad. The Bills of Entry were finally assessed on 24/04/2005 and differential duties were demanded on the ground that the appellant had failed to produce installation certificate. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original authority. Hence the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 6. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri P. Ramakrishna submitted that the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to imported capital goods which are used captively by the imported/appellant. To canvass this proposition, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CC, Chennai Vs....