This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Unjust enrichment not attracted to deposit during investigation or to pre-deposit for appeal
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- D.D. International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All CESTAT, CESTAT Delhi
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
D.D. International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Admittedly, the amounts under refund were deposited partly during investigation, after more than 2 years of import of the machinery and partly during pendency of the 1st appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). In this view of the matter, the amounts had been deposited by way of pre-deposit. Admittedly, Appellant have not sold the imported machines nor cleared the same, hence, there is no way by which the Appellant could have passed on the burden of custom duty. Further, the clause of unjust enrichment is not attracted in ...





