9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for benefit of Notification No. 63/95-Cus and refund claim credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under Sec. 27(2) of Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellants imported paper phenolic single sided copper clad laminate without claiming any notification benefit initially. The duty was paid, and later they sought re-assessment under Notification No. 63/95-Cus. The adjudicating authority granted the benefit but ordered the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to lack of evidence showing the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal. During the hearing, the appellants claimed to have submitted relevant documents to prove they did not pass on the duty burden. However, there was no evidence on record before the Commissioner (Appeals) supporting this claim. The only document submitted was an end use certificate, which is relevant for determining Notification benefit eligibility but does not address the passing on of the duty burden. The absence of pricing data or any other material justifying a remand of the matter led the Tribunal to uphold the lower authorities' decision. As the appellants failed to rebut the presumption that they passed on the duty burden, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the adjudication order. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decision to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Sec. 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
