Page 320 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

966 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
admissible - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner of Customs,
Tuticorin v. Sakthi Sugars Ltd. (Tri. - Chennai) ....................... 577
— delayed, rate of interest thereon - See under INTEREST ............. 385
— Excess duty paid on import of machinery as part of turnkey project -
Delay in processing refund claim - Petitioner aggrieved by impugned
order calling upon petitioner to produce documentary evidences for
purpose of examining aspect of unjust enrichment - HELD : Order
impugned clearly and unequivocally indicates that petitioners entitled
for refund and interest - However, as per reasoning of authority passing
impugned order, petitioner failing to establish that duty amount not
based on end-user or consumers - Process involved in processing refund
casts serious duty upon concerned officer to advert to facts pleaded
before authority for coming to conclusion that though refund payable,
same required to be deposited and paid in Consumer Fund for want of
any document or other evidence to indicate that payment of refund
would not result into “unjust enrichment” to recipient - Impugned order
absolutely silent qua petitioner’s contention indicating that machinery in
any manner not capable of being dealt with in or passing, so as to pass on
burden of duty to consumer or end-user - Authorities in uncanny
avoidance to deal with aspect rendering order vitiated and, therefore,
decision of authority qua depositing amount into consumer fund
required to be deprecated, quashed and set aside - Authority may be
called upon to decide aspect of payment of refund along with interest
without further insisting upon any other material and based upon
material already submitted - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj.) .................. 194
— granted on finalization of provisional assessment, demand of refund
without review of assessment order not sustainable - See under
DEMAND ...................................... 30
— of additional duty of excise - Application for rectification of Bill of Entry
under Section 149 read with Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 filed by
appellant but same not disposed of which compelled the appellant to file
the refund claim - Application under Section 149 ibid directly related to
the present refund matter - Department must first dispose of the
application of appellant filed under Section 149 ibid read with Section
154 ibid and thereafter, should reprocess the refund claim — Dinesh Mills
Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, Ahmedabad (Tri. - Ahmd.) .................... 866
— of Central Excise duty paid by DTA supplier on SEZ supplies not
admissible to SEZ unit/developer - See under SEZ ............... 266
— of import duty - Relinquishment of goods - In terms of Section 26A of
Customs Act, 1962 three conditions to be fulfiled simultaneously along
with one of components of fourth - Assessee’s claim that two containers
cleared by it should also be entitled to benefit of refund of duty - No
evidence on the record to show that goods that were taken into its
possession were same as that which was cleared - Goods neither re-
exported nor destroyed in compliance with Section 26A ibid -
Relinquishment of title not permissible in respect of goods already
cleared - Claim for refund of Section 26A ibid limited only to those which
goods were not cleared and acknowledged as relinquished - Non-
consideration of claim in relation to goods cleared by assessee, proper —
Canpex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Export), Nhava Sheva, Raigad (Tri. - Mumbai) . . 397
— of Special Additional Duty (SAD) delayed, interest payable - See under
INTEREST ...................................... 571
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  320