COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) Vs. KODAK INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 24-12-2013 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondent had imported 20 Rolls Colour Graphic film in Jumbo Rolls from Kodak, U.S.A. on 9-12-1996 and filed Bill of entry for assessable value of Rs. 1,53,64,149/-. The bill of entry was assessed under CTH 3702 at duty rate of 30% + 2% + 15% CVD amounting to Rs. 79,58,629/-. The duty was paid on 16th December, 1996. Subsequently, the Respondent filed a refund claim on 13-6-1997 for an amount of Rs. 11,95,219/-. Vide order dated 17-3-1998 the refund claim was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Appellate Authority vide order dated 16-10-2000 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the adjudicating authority had disqualified the refund claim without considering the documentary evidence submitted by the respondents. On remand, the original authority vide order dated 23-10-2003 sanctioned the refund amount of Rs. 11,95,219/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) Being aggrieved thereby the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Import) before the Appellate Authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 6-1-2005 accepted the appeal of the department on the ground that the respondents were entitled to the refund only when they rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment against them. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the CESTAT. The CESTAT vide its order dated 29-4-2005 set aside the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and referred the case back to the Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision only for decision on the issue of unjust enrichment, after examining all relevant documentary evidence produced by the respondents herein and to pass fresh order after hearing the parties afresh. Vide order dated 19-10-2005, the original authority Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim of assessee and rejected the departmental appeal.

(3.) Being aggrieved thereby the appeal is preferred before the CESTAT. The CESTAT on 24-12-2013 has also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.