TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....458/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) before the Assistant Commissioner, ICD Bangalore vide their letter dated 10.04.2012. The grounds for the refund claim in respect of 14 Bills of Entry under which the import has taken place during the period 03.11.2011 to 04.02.2012 was that the Department assessed the imported goods at the US$60 per SQM CIF instead of US$50 per SQM CIF. The higher valuation adopted by the Department has resulted in excess payment of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 21,61,458/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) in total and accordingly the refund claim was filed. As per the DGFT Notification No. 65/2011 dated 04.08.2011, the value ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refund is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide the impugned order rejected the refund claim. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has not properly appreciated the facts and the law. He further submitted that on two issues, the appellate authority has reversed the finding of the original authority. He also submitted that the appellate authority has held that the duty was paid under protest and there is no necessity of challenging the assessment order in view of the judgment in the case of Micromax Informatics (P) Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that the appellate authority has correctly held that the duty was paid under protest and further that there is no need to challenge the assessment order and the refund claim has rightly been filed. On the bar of unjust enrichment, the appellate authority has held that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. Further I find that once the appellate Commissioner has held that the refund has properly been filed and the duty was paid under protest the appellate authority should have also considered the memorandum of understanding between the appellant and his supplier abroad as well as the DGFT letter ....