9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 491 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 26,28,773/- on the grounds of failure to demonstrate that the burden of duty had not been passed on, and the subsequent appeal process leading to the refund claim being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Issue 1: Refund Claim Rejection The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 26,28,773/-, which was initially disallowed on the basis of not proving that the burden of duty had not been passed on. The case stemmed from the import of goods in 1996, with duty paid as declared in the bills of entry. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for enhancing the value of the imported goods, leading to a series of legal proceedings and appeals. The Tribunal initially confirmed a demand of Rs. 42,11,864/- and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged this decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which eventually set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the appeal. Issue 2: Appeal and Refund Claim Following the Supreme Court's decision, the appellant filed a refund claim for the disputed amount of Rs. 26,28,773/-. The Adjudicating Authority allowed the refund, but directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the appellant's failure to demonstrate that the duty burden had not been passed on. The appellant contended that the duty payment was made in 2001 based on the Tribunal's order, and the amount had been shown as recoverable in their accounts since then. The appellant provided evidence, including a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, to support their claim that the duty burden had not been transferred to buyers. Conclusion In light of the evidence presented by the appellant, including the continuous reflection of the disputed amount as recoverable in their accounts and the certification from a Chartered Accountant, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention that the burden of duty had not been passed on. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
