9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Refund of excess duty paid on imported goods under Notification No. 11/97-Cus, compliance with Section 28C of the Customs Act, 1962, burden of proof regarding passing on duty incidence to buyers. Summary: The case involved M/s. Erbis Engineering Limited appealing against the denial of refund for excess duty paid on imported goods. The original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both found that Erbis had not proven that the excess duty paid had not been passed on to buyers. The sales invoice did not separately indicate the duty element as required by Section 28C of the Act. The appellant's documents did not provide clarity on passing on the duty burden to customers, and the balance sheets did not reflect the impugned amount as receivable. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the legal provisions under Sections 28C, 28D, and 27 of the Customs Act. Section 28C mandates showing the duty element in sales invoices, while Section 28D presumes passing on the duty incidence to buyers unless proven otherwise. Section 27 allows refund if duty incidence was not passed on. In this case, the importer's sales invoice lacked clarity on the duty amount in the sale price. The Tribunal inferred that the duty was likely passed on to buyers since the goods were sold before the refund claim. The certificate from the Chartered Accountant was deemed insufficient without supporting documents. Additionally, Erbis had not treated the claimed amount in its balance sheets appropriately. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the original decision, dismissing Erbis' appeal. The Tribunal pronounced the operative part of the order on 30-10-2008.
|
