2009 (1) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18-8-83 as amended by notification 275/84-Cus., dated 17-11-84. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the notification benefit and assessed the consignment at full rate of duty i.e. 80%. The importer thereafter filed a refund claim for Rs. 45704/- on October 1985 which was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner vide his order dated 3-3-87/12-8-87 for non-production of SSI registration certificate, original essentiality certificate from the Director of Department of Electronics and End use certificate of the Central Excise authorities. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (A). The matter thereafter came to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the appellant's contented that they had produced all the necessary documents evidencing the utilization of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. However, the claim of the importer for grant of interest was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner on the ground that the balance sheet for the year 1985-86 was submitted only on 12-3-07 and thereafter no interest is payable. The matter again went up to the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment became effective only from 23-12-1991 and since the matter pertains to the period prior to 1991, there was no need for the original authority to scrutinize the balance sheet for examining the unjust enrichment aspect. He therefore held that the refund claim became ready for processing only after the letter dated 26-12-06 was received from the importer enclosing copies of various documents and therefore the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd perused the records. The Ld. DR in addition to the grounds of appeal submitted that the refund application filed by the appellant in 1985 was not a refund application but an application seeking re-assessment of the goods for incorrectly denying him the benefit of the exemption. Therefore unless the assessment is revised or set aside the refund does not become due and the application filed by him was pre-mature. The application therefore has to be considered as having been filed on 26-12-2006 and since all the pending claims are governed by unjust enrichment for which the necessary evidence was given in the form of balance sheet only in March 2007, no interest was due and accordingly, Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is required to be set a....