TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The appellant Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. is in appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of claim for refund of revenue deposit on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts are the appellant imported Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. vide 31 bills of entry between August 2004 to November 2007. The bills of entry were assessed provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owards 1% RD amount. 3. The Asst. Commissioner was pleased to sanction the refund claim, however, he was further pleased to credit the amount to consumer welfare fund instead of paying to the appellant. 4. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, relying on the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in United Spirits Ltd. [2009-TIOL-316] held that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any retrospective effect. 6. We have considered the rival submission of the Ld. AR for revenue, who stated that the provisional assessment was finalized after 14.07.2006. The doctrine of unjust enrichment will apply in the appellant's case, more so in this case of refund of revenue deposit. Ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. [2005 (181....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.03.2005 and further this amount is increased to Rs. 639,50,000 as on 31.03.2006. Further, this amount has also been shown as Recoverable from the revenue department as on 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006. Similarly amount receivables and deposits with customs department as on 31.03.2007. Further, it has been pointed out that the amount receivable included SVB loading. In furthering the detail in the fo....