2018 (5) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant. Ms A.S.K. Swetha and Mr N. Viswanathan, Advocates for the Respondent. Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against orders-in-Appeal No. 1 & 2/2008 dated 10/04/2008 filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of the amount paid by the assessee and excess collecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld that since the provisional assessments were in respect of imports made prior to July 2006, the question of unjust enrichment would not arise as Section 18 of the Customs Act 1962 was amended to bring in the bar of unjust enrichment in the case of finalisation of provisional assessment. To hold so, the 1st Appellate Authority relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of TVS Suzuki L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms Act 1962. She would submit that the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Mumbai-II Vs Standard Drum & Barrel Mfg Co. Ltd [2006(199) ELT 590(Bom) would apply in its full force as also the decision in the case of Solar Pesticides Vs UOI [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC]. 5. On a careful consideration we find that it is not in dispute that the coking coal was imported during the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ussa Overseas case as has been affirmed by Apex Court is incorrect and held that doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply in respect of provisional assessment prior to 13.07.2006. It is his submission that in the same judgement, Hon'ble High Court has also considered the case of Standard Drums & Barrel Mfg Co. Ltd (supra). He would gainfully rely upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the T....