Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Syngenta India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 18 January, 2006
ORDER T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. At the stage of deciding the stay application itself, the appeal is heard. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai after finalizing the provisional assessment has sanctioned revenue deposit refund of Rs. 68,887/- (Rupees Sixty Right Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven only) in favour of the appellants. Whereas the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai -I having found an error in the order of the Asst.Commr. has set aside the same while relying upon the case of Bussa Overseas & Properties Pvt. Ltd., v. U.O.I. which has been confirmed by Supreme Court in 2004 (164) ELT A177(SC). These decisions speak about the principle of unjust enrichment shall be looked into in the case laws and refund arising on finalization of provisional assessment.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellants contends that the Commissioner (A) has erred in not considering the Balance Sheet of the company, Price List and Invoices etc. before passing the order. According to him had the Commissioner (A) looked into the documents and pray that no incidence of duty has been passed to the customers and these documents did not indicate that duty is to be receivable by them from the Custom authorities as this Revenue Deposit is shown as receivable from Custom Authorities to be done by the original adjudicating authority, it is a prayer of the appellants that the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for re-examining the same and dispose of the case. In the light of aforesaid judgment and regard bring given to the submissions made by both sides, it is felt expedient that matter required for fresh adjudication by adjudicating authority after examining the documents now pointed out before the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to produce the documents before the concerned authority once again and adjudicating authority shall dispose of appeal in the light of rulings relied upon by the Commissioner (A) in his impugned order and also case laws relied upon by the appellants. The appeal is allowed in remand. Stay application is disposed of in above terms.
(Pronounced in court)