TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- • The Respondent/Assessee filed an application for refund of Rs. 1,00,423/- under the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 as a consequential relief arising out of Order-in-Appeal dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Respondent/Assessee. • Brief facts of the case giving rise to the refund claim dated 10.06.2015 in respect of Additional Duty of Customs leviable under sub-section (5) of the Section 3 of the duty paid at the time of import of consignments under four bills of entry. The refund claim included Rs. 1,00,423/- paid as Additional Duty in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted and thereafter the adjudicating authority holding that the Respondent/Assessee has failed to prove that the said duty has not been passed on to its buyer and further directed that the same amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as provided under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. • Thereafter, again the Respondent/Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case and further directed the adjudicating authority to finalize the refund claim of the Respondent/Assessee alongwith interest. Against which, the department has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the parties and perused the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs reported as 2019 (10) TMI 700-MADRAS HIGH COURT. He further submitted that the lower authorities on the rejecting his claim of refund has grossly violated the principle of natural justice in as much as the letter containing objection by the department was also dispatched to him after passing the Order-in-Original dated 19.10.2019. He also submitted that similarly placed the assessees were granted refund and he has been discriminated by the department. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner (Appeals) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (Pronounced on 14.02.2023) ============= Document 1 10.1.2 I find that once C.A certificate dt. 03.06.2015 copy of which was - submitted by the appellant at the time of personal hearing was submitted to the authorities and cognizance of the same has already been taken in OIO dt. 28.09.2015, then it is not proper and fair on the part of the adjudicating authority to say documents were not produced by the appellant. 10.1.3 I find that the adjudicating authority in para 2.6 of his order relied upon a draft circular issued by CBEC, New Delhi vide F. No. 137 /29/2016-Service Tax, wherein the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignee on 21.10.2019 and the impugned order was issued on 07.10.2019 and despatched on 10.10.2019 vide C. No. 1362. ! agree with the allegation of the appellant that letter calling for information which was relied upon by the adjudicating authority was not received by them. When letter seeking information called for never reaches the appellant then non production of record does not arise. Further, all the documents as desired to fulfill the provisions of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007 has already with the department as confirmed from para 2.3 of OIO No. OIO No.1063/DC/Ldh/2015 dated 28.09.2015. 11. It is prudent to note that any amount collected by the department in excess is amount collected wi....