COMMISIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. AGROTECH FOODS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is in appeal questioning the order of the CESTAT dated 11 -2-2005 passed in appeal No.C/4/2003, final order No.213/2004 where under the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and remanded the matter to the original authority to reconsider the refund and grant the same without applying the provisions of unjust enrichment on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said provisions are not applicable and has further directed that refund due to the respondent herein should be granted and for the said purpose the matter has been remanded.

(2.) It is this order which is questioned by the revenue. At the time of admission of the appeal on 31 -1 -2006 while admitting the appeal this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal by the revenue are that respondent herein imported 2984.420 MT of RBD Palmolein oil as per bill of entry No. 185/2001 dated 10-8-2001 through Karwar Port and bonded it in tank No.4 of M/s Konkan Storage & Systems Pvt.Ltd., Karwar on 16-8-2001. The said bill of entry has been assessed at the existing tariff value of372 US dollars per metric ton on 10-8-2001. Subsequently respondent have sought for Ex.bond bill of entry F.216/01 dated 27-9-2001 for clearance of 500 MT of RBD palmolien oil which has been assessed provisionally at 372 US dollars per MT and Customs out of charge was given on the same day i.e., 27-9-2001 after payment of Customs duty. However, it seems that respondent has only removed 97.510 MT of the said cargo from the bonded tank up to 8-10-2001 leaving a balance of 402.490 MT of cargo which was lying in the bonded tank.