2023 (6) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n it reached at Kolkata Port, three Bills of Entry were filed and a Customs duty of Rs. 11,32,81,147.78 was paid. The Bills of Entry Sl. Nos. 1746 dated 28.01.1991, 1856 dated 29.01.1991 and 01 dated 01.02.1991 respectively, were filed and the duty of which was paid vide Duty Receipt Nos.1-1062, 1-1024 and 1-1023, all dated 21.03.1991. The vessel was exempt from Customs duty but the other equipments, like Floating Pipes, Anchor Pontoons etc. were charged to duty on the grounds that the same were not part of the dredger vessel, and accordingly duty amounting to Rs.11,32,81,147.78 was paid on these items, as detailed above, and assessment order was issued. 2.2 Being aggrieved by this assessment, the appellant had then filed an appeal before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e principle of unjust enrichment. The lower authority vide Order No.2/05 dated 17.01.2005, again credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Appellant again filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), who vide Order No.Kol/Cus/68/2005 dated 23.03.2005, directed the lower authority to examine the case in accordance with the provisions of law. Once again, vide order dated 01.08.2006, the lower authority credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the present contract price is higher than the previous one, after importation of dredger, and held that it has passed duty to the incidence to other. The order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeal), who remanded the case to the lower authority to decide a....