2019 (10) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaged in making of Bitumen Emulsion which are used for construction of roads. They have set up a Joint Venture company in which HPCL and Colas SA, France were partners holding equal shares in appellant company. The appellants have the plant in various states including their first plant in Vashi Mumbai. They obtained know-how from Colas SA, France and also imported capital goods from them. The import of capital goods was referred to the SVB on the ground that the imports are from related persons and the appellants have paid license fee for the know-how. Since the matter was referred to SVB Mumbai Custom House, the imports were made provisional and appellant deposited 1% revenue and paid duty provisionally. The valuation of imported capital g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not done and therefore, the appellant filed a refund application. She also submitted that during the relevant period, Section 18 did not contain provision related to unjust enrichment and therefore the refund cannot be rejected under Section 18 on the ground of unjust enrichment. She further submitted that Section 18 of the Customs Act incorporated the principles of unjust enrichment only with effect from amendment of 13.7.2006 and therefore, the principle will not be applicable for the goods imported prior to that date whereas in the present case, the goods were imported vide Bill of Entry dated 8.11.2004 and the law as it stood at the time of filing of Bill of Entry is alone applicable to the assessment of Bill of Entry. Consequently....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Co. Ltd.: 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri.-LB) • Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. CEAT Ltd. : 2018 (361) ELT 420 (Bom.) • Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam vs. M/s. Essar Steels Ltd.: 2017-VIL-125-CESTAT-HYD-CU • Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd.: 2014 (303) ELT 231 (Tri.-LB) 3.2 She further submitted that both the authorities rejected the refund claim by relying the decision in the case of MRPL vs. CCE cited supra and the said decision of the Tribunal has been reversed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of MRPL vs. CCE: 2015 (323) ELT 484 (Kar.). She also submitted that refund of excess duty paid cannot be denied on the ground of non....