COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Jindal Drugs Ltd
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 28th December 2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Appellate Tribunal")
(2.) Two refund applications were filed by the respondentassessee. The refund applications were for the refund of amounts in view of duty paid and duty benefit claimed under the notification dated 19th May 2002 for import of goods under advance licences dated 23rd January 1995 and for import of goods under advance licences dated 7th February 1995. On 5th March 2010, the refund applications were rejected by orders-in-original. Appeals were preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). By order dated 4th May 2012, the appeals were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order in appeals, the respondent preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal which have been allowed by setting aside the order in appeal and the orders-inoriginal.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law A, B, and C mentioned in paragraph- 9 of the appeal memo, which reads thus:-
"A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in holding that the issue of unjust enrichment does not arise, in law as the Respondent herein has not passed on the incidence of amount claimed as refund on anyone else without considering that the Respondent herein has not disclosed the requisite and mandatory details in the Refund Claim Application under law?
B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in erroneously concluding that the Respondent herein has not passed on the incidence of amount claimed as refund on anyone else without considering the Appellant's submissions/contentions supported by corroborating material, in this regard?
C) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in applying the ratio in the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal reported in 2009 (248) ELT 457 and 2004 (312) ELT 73, which are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case?
He submitted that on similar questions, the Customs Appeal No.96/2007 has been admitted by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14th February 2008.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.