Cc Vs. Universal Cables

Cc vs Universal Cables

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 05, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/12998

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/12998
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: R T Lajja, S Kang
Decided On: Mar 05, 1998
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondent

Universal Cables

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(76)LC27Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the matter relates to the interpretation of law relating to unjust enrichment in a case where the goods imported were not to be sold at all and were consumed captively.the respondents m/s. universal cables ltd. imported 'accessories to the impulse generator', paid duty as demanded and subsequently claimed the refund of rs. 24082.13. the asstt. collector, customs, bombay was satisfied that the amount was refundable. he however, ordered that the said amount should be credited to the consumer welfare fund. on appeal, the collector, customs (appeals) relying upon a number of decision as cited in para 4 of his order came to the conclusion that the principles of undue enrichment shall not apply to the facts of the case.2. the revenue in their appeal had contended that the revenue had filed an appeal against the order of the bombay high court in the case of solar pesticides pvt. ltd. v. uoi .3. we have heard shri r.s. sangia, jdr for the revenue and shri rahul ray, advocate for the respondents.4. it is not disputed that the goods imported were used captively and no sale there of was effected. there is no stay by the apex court on the bombay high court decision which had been followed by the appellate authority in this case. further we find that in para 98 of their decision in the case of mafatlal industries ltd. v. uoi , the supreme court had clarified that their decision in that case did not deal with the situation relating to the captive consumption. thus, the hon'ble supreme court had left that question open.5. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the collector, customs (appeals) and there is no merit in this appeal filed by the revenue and the same is rejected.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the interpretation of law relating to unjust enrichment in a case where the goods imported were not to be sold at all and were consumed captively.

The Respondents M/s. Universal Cables Ltd. imported 'Accessories to the Impulse Generator', paid duty as demanded and subsequently claimed the refund of Rs. 24082.13. The Asstt. Collector, Customs, Bombay was satisfied that the amount was refundable. He however, ordered that the said amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. On appeal, the Collector, Customs (Appeals) relying upon a number of decision as cited in para 4 of his order came to the conclusion that the principles of undue enrichment shall not apply to the facts of the case.

2. The Revenue in their appeal had contended that the Revenue had filed an appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI .

3. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR for the Revenue and Shri Rahul Ray, Advocate for the respondents.

4. It is not disputed that the goods imported were used captively and no sale there of was effected. There is no stay by the Apex Court on the Bombay High Court decision which had been followed by the Appellate Authority in this case. Further we find that in para 98 of their decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI , the Supreme Court had clarified that their decision in that case did not deal with the situation relating to the captive consumption. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had left that question open.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the Collector, Customs (Appeals) and there is no merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Cc vs Universal Cables Same Subject Excise Same Judge R T Lajja, S Kang