TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills of entry for clearance (DAP) and deposited 1% Revenue deposit for each bills of entry, totally amounting to Rs. 1,80,87,271/- in view of circular no. 11/2011-Cusdated 23.02.2001. The deposit is a security deposit furnished for provisional assessment of these bills of entry in terms of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter was referred to Special Valuation Branch (SVB) vide order no. SVB/CUS/review/15/JPK/2009 dated 16.09.2009. It was held that declared valuation may be accepted with respect to usual check and scrutiny and comparison with prices in FMB international price guide. All the three bills of entry were finally assessed and the appellant filed the refund claim of Rs. 1,45,98,975/- for the refund of Revenue deposit aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shruti Agarwal, Advocates, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Revenue deposit furnished at the time of provisional assessment should be automatically refunded to the assessee after the final assessment. In his support he placed reliance on the following judgments: a. CC Vs Hindalco Industries Ltd - 2008 (231) ELT 36 (Guj.) -[upheld by the SC in the case of C Vs R.L. Kalthia Ship Breaking Pvt Ltd -2016 (338) ELT A76 (SC)] b. CC Vs. India Oil Corporation - 2012 (282) ELT 368 (Del.) c. Contemporary Packaging Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs UOI - 2014 (299) ELT 439 (Guj.) - [upheld by SC in the case of UOI Vs Contemporary Packaging Technologies Pvt. Ltd - 2017 (354) ELT A58 (SC)] 2.1 He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Order No. A/11113/2020 dated 11.06.2020 has been accepted by the department and the same is not being contested before the higher authority. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled for refund of pre-deposit along with interest without filing any application. 2.2 He referred to section 129E and 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the said section it is evident that the Appellants are eligible for consequential refund of the disputed amount in lieu of Order No. A/11113/2020 dated 11.06.2020. Further, they are also eligible for the refund on the said amount. They are also eligible for the interest on the said amount from 11.09.2020 till the day the said amount is refunded. He also submits that in case of refund of pre-deposit under Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertified that the burden has not been passed on. It is further that the balance sheet clearly shows this amount as recoverable from the Customs authority in the schedule pertaining to Loans and Advances, thus principal of unjust enrichment is satisfied. He placed reliance on following judgments - a. Commissioner v. Prism Cement Ltd. 2008 (9) S.T.R. 12 (All.) b. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2014 (309) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal) c. Riddhi Siddhi Processors v. CC-2019 (370) E.L.T. 1298 (Tribunal) d. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. CC-2015 (329) E.L.T. 0390 (Tribunal) 2.5 Without prejudice to his submissions made hereinabove, he further submits that the subsidy was being granted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64) ELT 393 (Tri-Del) - Gail India Ltd Vs. CCE, Gwalior viii. 2010 (262) ELT 500 (Tri-Mum) - Krohne Marshall Ltd Vs. CC, Airport, Mumbai ix. 2017 (352) ELT 308 (Guj) - GSFCL Vs. CCE x. 2018 (8) GSTL 47 (Mad) - Shoppers Stop Ltd Vs. CC (Exports), Chennai xi. 2010 (259) ELT 526 (Mad) - CC (Exports), Chennai Vs. BPL Ltd xii. 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) - Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs. Union of India xiii. A/10958-10959/19 dated. 08.02.2019-Nokia India Sales P Ltd Vs. CC, Ahmedabad 4. We have heard both sides and perused the records. The issue arising out of the impugned order to be decided is whether the refund filed by the CHA can be entertained and whether the principle of unjust enrichment is....