TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this appeal the issue involved is whether the appellant's refund claim of duty paid on short landing of goods namely, LNG is hit by mischief of unjust enrichment or otherwise. The background of this case is that the adjudicating/ sanctioning authority though on merit sanctioned the refund claim but credited into Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of Unjust Enrichment. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) taking cognizance of this Tribunal's earlier order in the same case reported as Petronet Lng Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad2012 (275) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Ahmd.) held that there is no Unjust Enrichment in this case and accordingly, allowed the appeal. The revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) filed the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of the revenue's appeal submits that in the appellant's own case in respect of the same refund, the Tribunal in the case reported at Petronet Lng Ltd 2012 (275) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Ahmd.) already decided that the Unjust Enrichment is not applicable in respect of the duty paid in case of short landing of goods and set aside the order whereby, the amount of refund was ordered to be credited into Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. She further submits that the appellant have shown the amount as receivable in their books of accounts and a Chartered Accountant's certificatewas also produced to this effect. The sanctioning authority after rejecting the Stay application of the revenue in the present appeal, giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of duty so paid on the short landing of the goods was shown as receivable in the books of accounts which has been certified by a Chartered Accountant. On this issue, the Tribunal in the decision in the appellant's own case reported at PetronetLng Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2012 (275) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Ahmd.) already considered the issue of Unjust Enrichment and held that in thisfact Unjust Enrichment is not applicable. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order considered the Tribunal's decision and allowed the appeal of the assessee.Moreover, after rejection of the Stay application of the revenue in the present appeal, the sanctioning authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner Customs Division, Suratvide Order-In- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to produce afresh CA certificate alongwith relevant ledger/Journal Voucher/books of account, where the amount of Rs 1,49,39,666/- is shown as receivable in their books of account with its present status and also to clarify their stand on the refund claim of Rs 3,02,204/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. F-276/05-06 dated 15.02.2006. The claimant vide letter dated 16.03.2015 submitted fresh CA certificate dated 03.03.2015 wherein it is certified that the quantum of customs duty amounting to Rs 1,49,39,966/- is still shown as receivables in the books of accounts. The claimant in their letter dated 16.03.2015 also submitted that differential amount of Rs 57,47,157/- (Rs 2,06,87,123/- Rs 1,49,39,966/-) and the amount of Rs 3,02,204/- in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....when the favourable order on refund was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that as regard the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Manisha Pharmo Plast Pvt. Ltd(supra) the same was appealed against before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgments reported as Manisha PharmoPlast Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India 2020(374)E.L.T.145(S.C.) set aside the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment and allowed the assessee's appeal, the said judgment is reproduced below:- "Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The High Court, vide impugned judgment [2010 (262) E.L.T. 165 (Guj.)], has denied relief of statutory interest payable to the appellant under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Circular No. 670....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading of Section 11BB, which now governs the question relating to payment of interest on belated payment of interest, makes it clear that relevant date for the purpose of determining the liability to pay interest is not the determination under sub-section (2) of Section 11B to refund the amount to the applicant and not to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund but the relevant date is to be determined with reference to date of application laying claim to refund. The non-payment of refund to the applicant claimant within three months from the date of such application or in the case governed by proviso to Section 11BB, non-payment within three months from the date of the commencement of Section 11BB brings in the starting point of liabi....