Holding

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the pre‑deposit, which is not a duty payment, and that the amount must be refunded with 13% interest, while affirming CESTAT’s findings on import price and penalty reduction.

Summary

The case involved the import of undenatured ethyl alcohol which the Customs Department alleged was undervalued and imported without a valid licence, leading to a demand for differential duty, penalties and confiscation. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the invoices showing a price of £1.40 per litre were authentic, rejected the allegation of undervaluation, reduced the imposed fines and penalties, but upheld the finding of unauthorised import. The importer’s purchaser, who had deposited Rs.1,56,64,500 as a condition for the release of the seized goods, sought a refund of this pre‑deposit with interest; the High Court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment to the duty component but not to the fine. The Supreme Court held that the pre‑deposit was not a duty payment, that Section 11B of the Customs Act and Section 35F of the Excise Act do not apply, and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable; consequently the amount must be refunded with 13% interest as per Board circulars. The Court affirmed CESTAT’s findings on price and penalty reduction and allowed the appeals of the Revenue, ordering the refund.

Issues considered

The correctness of CESTAT’s finding that the import price was £1.40 per litre and that there was no undervaluation.
Whether the reduction of the fine and penalty by CESTAT is legally valid.
Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to the refund of a pre‑deposit made for the release of confiscated goods.
Whether Section 11B of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 govern the refund of such pre‑deposits.
Whether interest is payable on the refunded amount.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 35F
Customs Act, 1962s. 11B

Subjects

customs dutyundervaluationunauthorised importpre‑deposit refundunjust enrichmentSection 11Binterest on refundCESTATconfiscationpenalty reduction

Judgment

[2015]4 S.C.R. 594

A COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD
v.
MIS. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS.

(Civil A~ ~al Nos. 1633-1638 of 2004)
B
APRIL 08, 2015

[ A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

c Customs Act, 1962 - Import of alcohol - Demand of
customs duty from the importers - On the ground of
misdeclaration and undervaluation and also alleged that
import was unauthorized - Order of Department demanding
differential duty with penalty for misdeclaration and
D undervaluation, and for unauthorized import directed
confiscation of goods and imposed fine - Appellate Tribunal
held that there was no undervaluation and struck off the
additional demand and penalty while upheld that import was
unauthorized and the goods were liable for confiscation -
E However, reduced the amount of fine - Appeal by the
assesees before High Court pending - On appeal of
Revenue to this Court held: Order of the Tribunal in deciding
the issue of import price and in reducing the fine and penalty
F are well reasoned and hence does not call for interference.

Doctrine of unjust Enrichment - Applicability of - To
. refund of pre-deposit - Confis9ation of imported goods which
were in custody of purchaser of the goods - On the grounds
G that the goods were undervalued and the import was
unauthorized - By interim order of the court, goods released
on furnishing bank guarantee by the purchaser- By further
order court directed that the purchaser shall be entitled to

H 594
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 595
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD.

refund of the deposited amount, with 13% interest, if A
ultimately he is held entitled to get back the deposited
amount - After the order of Tribunal in the case against the
importers that no additional duty was payable, application
of the purchaser for refund of the amount - Rejected
invoking doctrine of unjust enrichment - In customs appeal, B
High Court held that doctrine of unjust enrichment would be
applicable in respect of demand of duty while it will not be
applicable in respect of demand of fine - On appeal, held:
Doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in the
present case, as the deposit was as a condition for release C
of the confiscated goods and not towards any customs duty
- In view of the Circular dated 02.01.2002, doctrine of unjust
enrichment would not be applicable to refund of pre-deposit
- In view of the Circular dated 08.12.2004 refund of pre-
0
deposit should be done immediately - Therefore, direction
to refund the amount deposited by the purchaser with 13%
interest - Customs Act, 1962 - s. 11 B - Circular dated
02.01.2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and
Customs - Circular No. 80213512004-CX dated 08.12.2004 E
issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs.

Allowing the appeal Nos. 1633-1638/2004 and 5641 I
2010 and dismissing the appeal No. 3410/2006, the Court

HELD: Civil Appeal Nos. 1633-1638 of 2004: F

1. The CESTAT has rightly found that when the
invoices are produced showing the purchase price of
the goods in question and authenticity of these invoices
is not doubted by the Department, these will form as the G
primary evidence in support of the contention of the
respondents that the imported goods were purchased
at UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. Thus, there is no flaw
in the reasoning of the CESTAT while deciding the issue
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A of import price. [Para 6] [600-C-D]

2. The CESTAT has also given valid reasons for
reducing the penalty and fine and the discretion
exercised by the CESTAT was on valid considerations
B and hence does not call for any interference. [Para 8]
[601-E]

3. It is clarified that the dismissal of the appeals
would not impact in any way the appeal which is
C preferred by the respondents-assessees and is pending
in the High Court. The said appeal shall be decided by
the High Court on its own merits. [Para 8] [601-F]

Civil Appeal No. 6541 of 2010
D 1. The appellant had not imported the goods in
question. But it had purchased the good from the
tmporters. The dispute of under-invoicing was also qua
the said two importers on the basis of which custom
was claiming lesser payment of duty by the said
E importers. In the adjudication proceedings, while
imposing the duty against the said importers, a
categorical finding was also recorded at the same time
that the appellant had no role to play therein and was a
bona fide purchaser of the goods from the said
F importers. It is also manifest that the appellant came into
picture only when the goods purchased by the
appellant were seized by the custom department and he
had to approach the High Court for the release of those
goods. The interim order directing the appellant to
G deposit the amount in the sum of Rs.1,56,64,500 was
passed, as a condition for the release of the said goods,
and not towards any custom duty. In this scenario, it
cannot be held that the principle of unjust enrichment
H can at all be applied. [Para 14] [605-A-D]
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 597
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD.

2. The Circular dated 02.01.2002 issued by the A
Central Board of Excise and Customs, clarifies that in
the matter of refund of pre-deposit, refunds would not
be covered under the provisions of Section 11 B of the
Customs Act or Section 35F of the Central Excise Act,
meaning thereby, the aforesaid provisions which B
pertain to unjust enrichment would not be applicable.
It is also specifically pointed out in the said circular that
these deposits are other than duty. By another Circular
No.802/35/2004-CX., dated 08.12.2004 issued by the
Board, the Board emphasised that such amounts C
should be refunded immediately as non-returning of the
deposits attracts interest. Therefore, the entire amount
is directed to be refunde~ along with interest calculated
at the rate of 13 per cent per annum. [Paras 16, 17 and D
20] [605-G-H] [606-A] [608-B-C, E]

Union of India vs. Suvidhe Ltd. 1996 (82) ELT 177 -
relied on.

Case Law Reference E

1996 (82) ELT 177 relied on. Para 16

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1633-1638 of 2004.
F
From the Judgment and Order No. Cl/2044-2049/WZB/
2003 dated 10.09.2003 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. C/415 to 420/95-MUM.
With G
C.A. Nos. 3410/2006 and 6541/2010

K. Radhakrishnan, S. K. Bagaria, Nisha Bagchi, Sushma
Manchanda, Pooja Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, Parul Shukla,
Ankur Saigal, K. Ajit singh, Jiten Mehra, Mahesh Agarwal, H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A Rishi Agrawala, E. C. Agrawala for the Appellant.

Vikram Nankani Alok Yadav, Somnath Shukla, Bina
Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
A. K. SIKRI, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1633-1638 OF 2004

C 1. In August, 1991, respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein
imported 2 and 3 containers respectively of alcohol under
the description "Unde11atured Ethyl Alcohol' (Malt Spirit plus
or minus 59.3% Vol.) from an intermediary, Mis. Ravco
International Ltd., England (hereinafter referred to as 'RIL'
o for short). As per the Department, these imports were under
invoiced at pound 1.40 per litre whereas the actual price of
the said goods was pound 3.78 per litre. This led to
issuance of a show cause notice dated 28.09.1992 upon
the importers/respondents herein. It was alleged that the
E correct transaction value of the imported goods was pound
3. 78 per bulk litre and that the goods were imported
against invalid licenses. Accordingly, demand of customs
duty was raised against respondent nos. 1 and 2. It also
proposed confiscation of the goods and penal action against
F the respondents.

2 The Collector of Customs vide Order-in-Original
dated 28.02.1995 upheld the misdeclaration and
undervaluation and further held respondent no. 1 to pay
G customs duty of Rs.1,63,74,648/- along with penalty of
Rs.1,64,00,000 and goods to be confiscated. Respondent
no.2 goods valued at Rs.83,04,501/- to be confiscated.
However, the same were provisionally released on
furnishing Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 crore, differential duty
H to the tune of Rs. 77,34,994/-. A further penalty of Rs. 2.63
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 599
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

crores was imposed. Respondent no. 3 was directed to pay A
Rs. 20 lakhs as penalty, respondent no. 4 was imposed the
penalty of Rs. 1 crore and respondent no. 5 was to pay
Rs. 1 lakh as penalty.

3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals before the B
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') and the CESTAT vide
its final order dated 10.09.2003, partly allowed the appeals
thereby setting aside the order of the Collector regarding
enhancement of the unit price, while upholding that import of C
the said goods was unauthorised and was liable for
confiscation. However, the CESTAT reduced the amount of
fine imposed and set aside the penalties imposed on the
respondents. Hence the present Appeals.
D
4. Insofar as the Revenue /Department is concerned,
it is aggrieved by the following findings arrived at by the
CESTAT in the impugned judgment: -

1. Accepting the version of the respondents- E
assessees that the goods in question were imported at
UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre and not UK pound 3.78
per bulk litre as claimed by the Revenue.

2.The reduction of redemption fine from Rs.51,62,413/ F
- to Rs. 10 lakhs.

3.The reduction of penalty on Mr. S. R. Nagpal
from Rs.22,65,006 to Rs. 10 lakhs.

5. We may mention at this stage that against the other G
findings of the Tribunal which have gone against the
assessee, the assessee has also filed the appeal which
is pending before the Bombay High Court.

6. Insofar as the first issue of import price of the liquor H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 4 S.C.R.

A in question is concerned, the order of the Collector
reveals that the respondents-assessees have relied upon a
letter indicating that the goods were imported at the rate
of UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. After discussing
elaborately, the Collector rejected the authenticity or
B evidentiary value of the said letter. However, apart from this
letter, the respondents had also produced invoices and in
these invoices price of UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre is
specifically mentioned. The Collector has not taken into
account or considered the import of these invoices. On
C the other hand, the CESTAT has remarked and rightly so, that
when the invoices are produced showing the purchase
price of the goods in question and authenticity of these
invoices is not doubted by the Department, these will form
as the primary evidence in support of the contention of
0
the respondents that the imported goods were purchased at
UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. We thus, do not find any flaw
in the reasoning of the CESTAT while deciding this issue.

7. Insofar as the reduction of redemption fine as well
E as the penalty is concerned, the CESTAT has given the
following reasons in doing so: -

"Redemption Fine

F In view of our finding on issue (i) that the goods
are liable to confiscation as they have been imported
without cover of a valid licence. We hold that levy of
fine is warranted. However we note that for the first time
in the case of Bussa Overseas Properties Ltd. vs.
G CC(I) Mumbai 2002(148) ELT 328, the Tribunal held
that over-proof whisky having more than 55% alcohol
content by vol. is a concentrate of alcoholic beverages
and until this decision, a practice to allow clearances
of similar goods under REP licence was prevalent. We
H also note that a long period has lapsed since the
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 601
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

import and that the goods are raw materials for A
manufacture of alcoholic beverages that this is not a
case of duty evasion as the finding on undervaluation
has on set aside by us thereby reducing the gravamen
of the charge. The assessable value of the goods
imported by FCPL is Rs.15,08,040/- while the B
assessable value of the goods imported by SRN is
Rs.22,78,578/-. The fine levied by the Commissioner
on FCPL is Rs.51,62,413/- and that of SRN is
Rs.22,65,006/-. We are not able to fathom the logic
behind fixing the above quantum of fines. There is C
nothing in the impugned order to indicate the basis on
which the quantum was arrived at. Having regard to
the above factors including the fact that the import
Policy was liberalised subsequently and that only the
0
charge of ITC violation has been sustained by us, we
reduce the fine levied on FCPL to Rs. 10 lakhs and
on SRN to Rs. 15 lakhs."

8. We are of the opinion that the CESTAT has given
valid reasons for reducing the penalty and fine and the E
discretion exercised by the CESTAT on valid considerations
does not call for any interference. These appeals are
accordingly, dismissed. We make it clear that the dismissal
of the appeals would not impact in any way the appeal which F
is preferred by the respondents-assessees and is pending
in the Bombay High Court. The said appeal shall be
decided by the Bombay High Court on its own merits.

Civil Appeal No. 6541 of 2010
G
9. The appellants herein are carrying on the business,
inter alia, of manufacturing, sale and distribution of Indian
Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). They are the successor in
interest of Shaw Wallace Distilleries. It so happened that in
same proceedings which were initiated against one M/s. H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A S. R. Nagpal and company and M/s. Finacord Chemicals
Private Limited, who had imported certain goods from
England and had sold to the appellant herein, the said
goods which were in custody of the appellant were seized
by the Customs Department in those proceedings. The
B appellant felt aggrieved by the said seizure and approached
the High Court of Bombay for release of the goods. In the
said Writ Petition No. 3220 of 1991 filed by the appellant,
interim order dated 25.10.1991 was passed which reads
as under: -
c
"Rules returnable forthwith Respondents waive service.
Order as per minutes. Petition disposed of accordingly
adjudication proceedings to proceed.

D 10. Upon the petitioner no. 1 depositing the
amount of Rs.1,56,64,500/- with the Additional
Collector of Customs, Bombay the Petitioners are
allowed to utilize 15664,50 bulk liters of Ethyl Alcohol
which are the subject matter of the Supurthnama dated
E 7.10.1991."

10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the appellant
deposited a sum of Rs. 1,56,64,500/- and got the siezed
goods released. The appellant, thereafter, moved another
F application in the said writ petition praying that the money
deposited by it be kept with the Nationalised Bank in a
Fixed Deposit. On the said application, order dated
30.10.1991 was passed. Though the aforesaid request of
the appellant was rejected, but at the same time, the Court
G gave the direction that in the event it is ultimately held that
the appellant is entitled to get back the amount deposited by
it, the same shall be refunded to the appellant with interest at
the rate of 13 per cent per annum which was the rate of
interest payable by the Nationalised Bank on Fixed
H Deposits at the relevant time.
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT}, RAIGAD v. 603
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

11. The matter was proceeded against M/s. S. R. Nagpal A
and company and M/s. Finacord Chemicals Private Limited.
The Order-in-Original was passed by the Commissioner
against those firms. However ultimately the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to 'CESTAT') in the appeals filed by them, gave B
them substantial relief by allowing the appeals partly. The
issue as to whether there was an under- invoicing in the
import of the goods was decideli in favour of the said
parties and on that ground, the additional demand of duty
was struck down. Even the redemption fine was reduced to C
Rs. 10 lakhs and as far as penalty is concerned, it was
completely knocked off and set aside. We may mention
here that against that order passed by the CESTAT, the
Department had filed appeal and this court has affirmed that D
part of the order of the CESTAT dismissing the appeal of
the Department. The effect thereof is that even qua M/s. S.
R. Nagpal and company and M/s. Finacord Chemicals
Private Limited, no additional duty or the penalty is
payable and the only redemption fine to the extent of Rs. E
10 lakhs is payable.

12. In the aforesaid background, the appellant herein,
which was not even the importer of the goods but had
purchased the goods from M/s. Finacord Chemicals F
Private Limited, made an application for refund of the
amount of Rs.1,56,64,500 which was deposited pursuant to
the order dated 25.10.1991 passed by the High Court of
Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3220 of 1991. The
Commissioner while dealing with the case of Mis. S. R. G
Nagpal and company and M/s. Finacord Chemicals Private
Limited had recorded certain findings in respect of the
appellant herein as well. Insofar as the appellant is
concerned, it is categorically held that no role could be
attributed to the appellant in the import of goods in question H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A and the appellant was the bona fide purchaser of the goods
from the said two importers. The Commissioner also referred
to the interim orders passed by the High Court of Bombay
in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant, which are taken note
of above. However, in his order, he ultimately recorded
B that the question of refund would arise only if the
adjudication order holds the appellant to be entitled to this
amount or part thereof. At the same time, it is significant to
note some pertinent observations made by him in the order
to the effect that the amount in question was in the nature
C of deposit by the appellant in lieu of permission to take back
the goods and to utilise those goods pending adjudication
and if adjudication orders so warrants, this amount could
be appropriated towards dues as adjudicated, according
to law.
0
13. After the order of the CESTAT holding that no
additional duty was payable, the appellant made an
application for refund of the amount deposited by it stating
that even the importers were held not liable to pay any duty.
E This application was, however, rejected invoking the doctrine
of 'unjust enrichment'. Challenging the order, the appellant
preferred Customs Appeal No. 56 of 2008 before the High
Court of Bombay. Vide the impugned judgment dated
F 25.06.2009 rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the
aforesaid appeal, the High Court has confirmed the
applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment insofar as
the demand of duty is concerned. However, insofar as the
demand of fine is concerned, the High Court has held that
G the principle of unjust enrichment would not be attracted. It
is this judgment which is under challenge in the present
proceedings.

14. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that
H insofar as the appellant is concerned, it had not imported the
COMM. OF CUSTOMS {IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 605
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

goods in question. The importers were M/s.S.R.Nagpal and A
company and M/s. Finacord Chemicals Private Limited.
The dispute of under-invoicing was also qua the said two
importers on the basis of which custom was claiming lesser
payment of duty by the said importers. In the adjudication
proceedings, while imposing the duty against the said B
importers, a categorical finding was also recorded at the
same time that the appellant had no role to play therein and
was a bona fide purchaser of the goods from the said
importer which were imported by them. It is also manifest
that the appellant came into picture only when the goods C
purchased by the appellant were seized by the custom
department and he had to approach the High Court of
Bombay for the release of those goods. What is significant
is that as a condition for the release of the said goods, D
interim order directing the appellant to deposit the amount
in the sum of Rs.1,56,64,500 was passed. It was not towards
any custom duty. In this scenario, it is difficult to hold that
the principle of unjust enrichment can at all be applied.

15. As far as the deposit of the aforesaid amount by the E
appellant and seeking refund thereof is concerned, we need
not discuss the law on this aspect in detail as the position
would become completely transparent on taking note of
some of the circulars issued by the Central Board of F
Excise and Customs, New Delhi, itself. Further, these circulars
are issued to give effect to certain judicial pronouncements.

16. First circular to which we would like to refer is
Circular dated 02.01.2002 issued by the Board, wherein the
Board clarified that in the matter of refund of pre-deposit, G
refunds would not be covered unaer the provisions of Section
11 B of the Customs Act or Section 35F of the Central Excise
Act, meaning thereby, the aforesaid provisions which
pertain to aforesaid unjust enrichment would not be H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A applicable. It is also specifically pointed out in the said circular
that these deposits are other than duty. The circular was
issued keeping in view of the orders of this Court in few
cases including in Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. It is clear
from the following portion of this circular:
B
"The issue relating to refund of pre-deposit made
during the pendency of appeal was discussed in the
Board Meeting. It was decided that since the practice
in the Department had all along been to consider
C such deposits as other than duty, such deposits should
be returned in the event the appellant succeeds in
appeal or the matter is remanded for fresh
adjudication.

D 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the Revenue
had recently filed a Special Leave Petition against
Mumbai High Court's order in the matter of NELCO
LTD, challenging the grant of interest on delayed
refund of pre- deposit as to whether:
E
(i) the High Court is right in granting interest to the
depositor since the law contained in Section 35F of the
Act does in no way provide for any type of
compensation in the event of an appellant finally
F succeeding in the appeal, and,

(ii) the refunds so claimed are covered under the
provisions of Section 11 B of the Act and are governed
by the parameters applicable to the claim of refund of
G duty as the amount is deposited under Section 35F
of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
26-11-2001 dismissed the appeal. Even though the
Apex Court did not spell out the reasons for dismissal,
H
COMM. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD v. 607
FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

it can well be construed in the light of its earlier A
judgment in the case of Suvidhe Ltd. and Mahavir
Aluminium that the law relating to refund of pre-deposit
has become final."

17. It is the order dated 07.08.1996 which was passed B
. by this Court in Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. dismissing the
special leave petition which was filed by the Union of India
against the judgment of ·the High Court of Bombay in
Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (82) ELT 177]. Since
the special leave petition was dismissed in limine, we would C
like to reproduce para 2 of the judgment of the High Court
wherein the High Court had observed that in case of such
deposits, provisions of Section 11 B of the Customs Act
will have no application. This para reads as under: -
D
"2. Show cause notice issued by the Superintendent
(Tech.) Central Excise to the petitioner to show cause
why the refund claim for Excise Duty and Redemption
fine paid in a sum of Rs.14,07,410/- should be denied
under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Rules and Act, E
1944 (sic) is impugned in the present petition. The
aforesaid amount is deposited by the Petitioners not
towards Excise Duty buy by way of deposit under
Section 35F for availing the remedy of an appeal.
Appeal of the petitioners has been allowed by the F
Appellate Tribunal by its Judgment and order passed on
301h of November, 1993 with consequential relief.
Petitioners' prayer for refund of the amount deposited
under Section 35F has not received a favourable
response. On the contrary the impugned show cause G
notice is issued why the amount deposited should not
. be forfeited. In our judgment, the claim raised by the
Department in the show cause notice is thoroughly
dishonest and baseless. In respect of a deposit made H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R.

A under Section 35F, provisions of Section 11 B can
never be applicable. A deposit under Section 35F is
not a payment of Duty but only a pre-deposit for availing
the right of appeal. Such amount is bound to be
refunded when the appeal is allowed with consequential
B relief."

18 .. By another Circular No.802/35/2004-CX., dated
08.12.2004 issued by the Board, the Board emphasised that
such amounts should be refunded immediately as non-
e returning of the deposits attracts interest that has been
granted by the courts in number of cases.

19. It is stated at the cost of repetition that since the
amount in question was deposited in compliance with the
o interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay, which
was not towards duty, the question of unjust enrichment
would not arise at all.

20. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. That part of the
E order of the High Court of Bombay which dis-entitles refund
of duty amount is set aside. The entire amount shall be
refunded along with interest calculated at the rate of 13 per
cent per annum, as order to this effect was specifically
passed on 30.10.1991 in Writ Petition No. 3220 of 1991 by
~ ttret f\li@ln:£ourt of Bombay.
no tJ':.lZ2s::i 1Gb10 or'b ., ·~·
b 1 jiiv![_{}J;?g~~l-~q; 34,l~, _of ?09_6
b::i. '2'1". In vleV.F6f th~ brdtfi'rs1 passed'~bove,' ·this appeal
.;J it~~mrrea 0 by the'Cominls~iorieflorc;sfo/tis1~ di~Riissed.
t::i ~2U.G~ \.Ona t~J11b~'1i~<·: ~.i" .: "(0~Jno8 ..... 111 r--\ I .E:J~r:Jc;-!c.i 1
1$~1pa~a )$·. T~ip~\hy . . . . , r< , , . ,, Af?pe~!s ,di~po.sed of.
~C·n 01Uv112 U t ... 1.-·......,r, •...J J1 .• .JL ,.,l J t ~f \J ·~4.'( G1 ~· -.hJ_-·.,.J l
9r1! yj L)'~·<'.ti1 ;,11 r.L.' .._. 1r~t :f ·JrnuL'_:\ i_ ...
1 J .. ·j_ ·-~irt ~- J

\l'f···le''(t\J .,'. f'; 1JG·I' JGJb::''/'J ' S ,_· 1. .::Jf,:11Sq~l]
UL't,W. JiC:Ol{)b ,, ~l) J::J; lO::'J1 f'i .;c?, ..;1i!::tcSJ .)f'b :~Y1or ~iO
H