2008 (5) TMI 204 - AT - Customs

Assessee a patient of old spinal disc problem could not made to Bench because of extreme pain reasonable cause shown appeal is restored order passed Ex parte is not justified since Chartered Accountant who audited assessee s books of account (before and after import) has certified that no part of the customs duty paid on the subject machine was passed on to the customers directly or indirectly refund is not allowed to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal rejected ex parte due to non-appearance of the appellant.
2. Appellant's absence on the scheduled hearing date.
3. Restoration of the appeal and hearing on merits.
4. Refund claim dispute based on unjust enrichment.
5. Commissioner's review appeal and remand.
6. Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities.
7. Appellant's contentions regarding depreciation and unjust enrichment.
8. Chartered Accountant's certification.
9. Tribunal's precedent on depreciation and duty incidence.
10. Decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and allow the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal rejected the appeal ex parte as the appellant did not appear for the hearing despite notice. The appellant claimed he received the hearing intimation but faced health issues on the hearing day, leading to his absence.

2. The appellant, a 70-year-old with spinal disc problems, tried to appear before the Tribunal but failed due to health concerns. He delegated representation, but the appeal was already rejected the day before due to non-appearance.

3. The appellant cited the Supreme Court's ruling allowing restoration of appeals rejected ex parte. The Tribunal, after considering the appellant's reasons for absence, recalled the ex parte order, restored the appeal, and proceeded to hear it on merits.

4. The dispute involved a refund claim arising from a reclassification order on an imported printing machine. The authorities credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on the unjust enrichment principle.

5. The Commissioner's review appeal and subsequent remand focused on the unjust enrichment aspect, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. The appellant argued that claiming depreciation for income tax purposes did not equate to passing on duty incidence to customers. The appellant provided detailed submissions and cited relevant case laws to support his contentions.

7. The Chartered Accountant's detailed certification confirmed that no part of the customs duty was passed on to customers, directly or indirectly, strengthening the appellant's position.

8. Precedents established by the Tribunal clarified the distinction between depreciation for income tax and duty refund claims, supporting the appellant's argument against passing on duty incidence to customers.

9. Considering the appellant's submissions, the Chartered Accountant's certification, and relevant case laws, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal, acknowledging the appellant's position on unjust enrichment.

10. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the lack of duty incidence passing to customers, supported by the Chartered Accountant's certification and established legal precedents.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision.