Page 152 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

198 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

accrue to the petitioner on account of refund and interest amount. The following
queries were made. Therefore, the communication dated 16-7-2018 deserve to be
reproduced hereunder :-
“Sub : Application dated 16-8-2017 for Refund claim of Customs Duty & In-
terest thereof; Total of Rs. 22,44,88,330.71 arising out of Order-in-
Assessment No. KDL/DC/NC/105/ GR-V/2016, dated 23-1-2017 issued
by the Deputy Commissioner (GR.V), Customs House, Kandla-reg.
Please refer to your letter F.No. BDA/GS/Appeal-Kandala/2012-13,
dated 1-6-2018 (received on 7-6-2018) in respect of your refund claim appli-
cation letter dated 16-8-2017 (received in this office on 21-8-2017) for Re-
fund of Customs duty of Rs. 5,41,82,641.08 & Interest of Rs. 17,03,05,689.63
(Total claim of Rs. 22,44,88,330.71).
In this connection, it may be noted that you have not yet produced
any documentary evidence before me that you have not passed on or re-
covered the incidence of Customs duty for which refund being claimed
from the buyers or any other persons and same is borne by you. The aspect
of “Unjust Enrichment” is net yet cleared in this case. Thus the following
documents are invariably required by this office to examine the aspect of
“Unjust Enrichment”.
(1) Relevant Ledgers A/c/Balance Sheet, showing the customs duty
paid against relevant Bill of Entry is recoverable from Customs authority
and no recovery thereof has been made from the buyers or any other per-
sons.
(2) Relevant MODVAT/CENVAT ledgers/Register of the relevant
period for verification of “No Modvat Credit has been availed by your unit
against the relevant Bill of Entry”.
Further, you have stated that the matter is pertaining to the year 1985-
86 and relevant documents/ledgers A/c are not available with you. Then,
in the absence of same, how the CA has given respective Certificate dated
8-8-2017 without verification of relevant documents/records. It is requested
to clarify the same.
In view of above, you are requested to explain to the undersigned as
to why your refund claim application should not be rejected for not provid-
ing above documents to examine the aspect of “Unjust Enrichment”.
3. The petitioner appears to have approached the Court thereafter on
10-12-2018. The Court issued notice for final disposal, which was made returna-
ble on 24-12-2018. Thereafter, time and again the matter was adjourned. On 9-1-
2020, the Court passed following order :-
“Learned advocate for the petitioner seeks amendment by way of this ap-
plication with following prayer :
“9(A) Allow the present application and permit the amendments
as prayed for.
(B) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such and further orders
as may be deemed just and proper.”
2. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in fact, this
amounts to putting up a substantively present case and therefore, let there
be some time for filing reply.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  168