SHIRDI STEEL TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claimed by the appellant shall be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment or not. It is the appellants case that said deposit was made after the adjudication by the original authority and as such would not be hit by unjust enrichment. On the other hand, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the deposit was not made in pursuance to the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), but was made much prior to the same.

(2.) THE issue to be decided is as to whether the deposit is made in terms of stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or not. After preferring the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), an assessee is required to deposit the confirmed amount of duty. As such, if they deposits the amount, for the purposes of Section 35F, instead of stay petition, it is to be treated as having been deposited in terms of provisions of law.

(3.) AS such, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for examining the above aspect and decide the issue afresh.