2025 (8) TMI 1661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und of deposit of Rs. 50 lacs. made after deduction of redemption fine at Rs. 10 lacs, confirmed through CESTAT order from total deposit of Rs. 60 lacs. made during investigation. 2. Fact of the case travelled through a checkered path. Respondent/Importer M/s. Aban Offshore Ltd. was alleged to have imported a rig on 09.12.1998 that was seized on 27.03.1999 through proper seizure list for alleged contravention of the Customs Act which Rig, Respondent/Importer stated to have entered territorial water of India only for repairing and return. Respondent/Importer sought for provisional release of the said rig that was seized on the ground that import had taken place without payment of customs duty and the same was allowed to be provisionally rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that Importer had failed to meet the requirement of unjust enrichment. Respondent/Importer's appeal before the Commissioner yielded no fruitful result for which he approached this Tribunal again which had remanded back matter vide its order dated 27.04.2017 to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration . In the remand proceedings, Respondent/ Importer claim for refund received similar fate by the Adjudicating Authority cum Refund Sanctioning Authority but it succeeded in getting the refund order passed in its favour from the Commissioner (Appeals) before whom he preferred the appeal, legality of the said order is assailed by the concerned Commissioner in this appeal. 3. During the course of heari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely absent in the present case apart from the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Finacord Chemicals Private Ltd reported in 2015 (319) ELT 616, had set aside Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order passed in the case of Bussa Overseas case as well considered Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. case cited supra that has been relied upon by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant and, had given its clear finding that doctrine of unjust enrichment could not apply to redemption fine and penalty but would apply to the duty demand only and since there is no importation of goods for home consumption, the amount deposited by Importer M/s. Aban Offshore cannot be termed as duty, for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be int....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which in instant case should be customer of goods who is supposed to purchase goods under proper invoice. Since no such thing happened, it cannot be expected that Respondent/Importer would provide documentary proof to substantiate that it was not unjustly enriched when transaction was not in existence. Further, it has to be noted that even though Hon'ble Supreme Court considered its own decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd, and opined in Finacord Chemicals Private Ltd. case, cited supra that doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply to redemption fine and penalty, it would also be worthwhile to look at the ratio of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd decision wherein it was clearly noted that to claim a refund, Assessee had to show ....