Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : D.D. International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 51235 of 2022(SM)
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/02/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

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 case of a deposit during investigation or pre- deposit during appeal. Reliance is placed on the ruling in C.C.E vs Pricol Ltd [2015–320– E.L.T–703( Madras)] wherein, it has been held that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable to deposit made during investigation, the High Court relied upon the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Suvidhe Ltd. 1997 (94) E.L.T. A159 (S.C.). The Apex Court have held that unjust enrichment is not attracted where amount is deposited during investigation and pendency of appeal, as such deposits are under protest or in the nature of pre-deposit.

CESTAT find that the order of court below is erroneous and in the teeth of the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suvidhe Ltd (supra). Admittedly, the amount under refund claim were deposited partly during investigation and partly during pendency of the 1st appeal. Further, it is evident that the Appellant did not agree with revenue and have contested the SCN as well as the adjudication order. The amount deposited are found to be deposited under protest, ipso facto. Further, these amounts are also in the nature of pre-deposit. Accordingly, CESTAT hold that the burden of unjust enrichment is not attracted.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER

The issue in this appeal is whether the sanctioned amount of refund has been rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031