2019 (10) TMI 1157

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of unjust enrichment? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows. The appellants had filed Bill of Entry for import of second hand, old and reconditioned engine with a declared value of Rs. 15,78.009/-. But according to the authorities the said engine was 're-manufactured' and as such prohibited for import. The Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 7.2.2008 held the goods to be prohibited goods and ordered for confiscation of the same with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 11,00,000/- u/s. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s. 112(a) ibid. The Appellant paid both redemption amount and penalty totaling Rs. 12,50,000/-. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso submits that the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply in case of refund of redemption fine, penalty etc. He also submitted that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were relied upon by the learned commissioner, do not apply on the facts of the case since the same are in context of refund of duty and not refund of redemption fine, penalty etc. He submits that the Appellant did submit the Chartered Accountant's certificate in support of its contention that the amount has not been passed on to the consumer therefore the learned commissioner's finding is erroneous that the appellants had not submitted any documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority to show that the incidence of the amounts in question has not....