2025 (7) TMI 2055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the business of import of mobile phones falling under CTH 85171290 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the relevant period, the appellant had paid additional duty of customs (CVD), however, without availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as they had not satisfied the condition No.16 prescribed under the said notification. Later, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (SC), decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that they would be eligible to the benefit of N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chartered Account's certificate, the Tribunal at Delhi, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad in their own case held that the appellant had not collected the duty from their customers; accordingly refund claims are not hit by the principles of unjust enrichment. In support, he has referred to the judgment in the following cases:- i. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, ACC Import [judgment dated 15.10.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 50113/2020 - CESTAT- Delhi] ii. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, ACC Import [judgment dated 08.11.2023 in Customs Appeal No. 50113/2020 - CESTAT-Delhi] iii. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Hyderabad [judgment dated 24.07.2018 in Customs Appeal Nos. 30153 - 30154/2018, CESTAT-Hyderabad] Also, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....over-ruling of the principles followed in the said order by a subsequent judgment cannot dilute the binding effect of the decision. In Global Constructions, the Tribunal examined almost a similar issue. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund amount but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal held that though the Supreme Court had subsequently held in ITC that a refund can be claimed only if the assessment order is modified but since the finding of the adjudicating authority sanctioning refund was not assailed by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals), it would not be permissible for the department to raise this issue before the Tribunal. 45. Learned authorized representative appearing for the depa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er sanctioning refund had attained finality as no appeal was filed by the department to assail this order, the department cannot be permitted to raise the issue regarding maintainability of the refund applications." 8. Similarly on the issue of unjust enrichment, after referring to the Chartered Accountant Certificate which has been referred by the Hyderabad Bench and Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, this Tribunal observed as follows: - "54. It is seen that the same chartered accountant issued three identical certificates, each dated 29.12.2015, to the appellant in respect of the import of the same goods at about the same time from Delhi, Ahmedabad and Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Bench of t....