2010 (6) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Provisional assessment - Valuation - Refund - While the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the evidence on record to verify whether the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyers or not with a liberty to the appellant to produce the evidence in support of their contention - Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the documents like ledger A/Cenvat credit, C.A. Certificate, Balance sheet and invoices but did not specify that what more evidence is required to verify the claim of the appellant - appellant has been able to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers. Accordingly, he is entitled to claim the refund.

Summary

Issues:
1. Enhanced value of imported goods
2. Refund claim of excess duty paid
3. Verification of burden of excess duty passed on to buyers

Enhanced Value of Imported Goods:
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of Styrene Butadiene Rubber, with the declared value being rejected and enhanced from 650 USD per MT to 750 USD MT based on contemporary imports. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally pending a test report, and the final enhanced value was determined on 19-3-99. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhanced value determined by the adjudicating authority. The appellant then filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,15,837/-, which was sanctioned but ordered to credit in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The lower appellate authority confirmed this decision. The appellant appealed the order.

Refund Claim of Excess Duty Paid:
The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant provided documents like ledger, C.A. Certificate, balance sheet, and invoices to show that the excess duty burden was not passed on to the buyer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not specify which further documents were needed for verification. The Tribunal held that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to establish that the duty burden was not passed on, citing previous cases where refund claims were allowed based on similar evidence. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to claim the refund, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Verification of Burden of Excess Duty Passed on to Buyers:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to specify additional evidence required beyond the documents already submitted by the appellant to verify that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers. Relying on previous cases, the Tribunal held that the appellant had successfully demonstrated that the duty burden was not transferred to buyers. The Tribunal allowed the refund claim, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not dispute the C.A.'s certificate and that the appellant had provided adequate evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted the appeal with any consequential relief.