2015 (10) TMI 2612 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - whether the incidence of duty for which refund is sought for has been passed on or otherwise? - Held that - appellant have produced books of account and balance sheet to the original authority and also to the appellate authority which clearly shows that the amount of excess duty paid has been shown as receivable in the books of account. Moreover the Chartered Accountant also certified that duty for which refund was sought for has been shown as receivable in the books of account. Chartered Accountant also certified that no depreciation was claimed on the excess duty depreciation claimed only on the cost of machinery excluding the excess duty - appellant have successfully exhibited on the basis of books of account and C.A. Certificate that incidence of excess duty paid for which refund was sought for has not been passed on to any other person - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the incidence of duty for which refund is sought has been passed on or not.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against an order rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the refund credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The main issue was whether the duty refund sought had been passed on.

2. The appellant argued that they provided evidence, including a Chartered Accountant certificate, showing that the refund amount had not been passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider this evidence, leading to an unsustainable order.

3. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to establish that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted a lack of correlation between the invoices and the machinery imported, indicating the duty had been passed on.

4. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's findings, highlighting that the appellant's books of account and balance sheet clearly showed the excess duty as receivable. The Chartered Accountant confirmed this and stated that no depreciation was claimed on the excess duty.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant successfully demonstrated, through the evidence presented, that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority was directed to grant the refund claim. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.