2018 (8) TMI 1355 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - Unjust enrichment - Whether the Tribunal was correct in not considering the express evidence on the sale invoice which showed that the incidence of Special Additional Duty of Customs was passed on to the next buyer which was germane in deciding if the respondent was entitled to refund? - secondary evidence in the form of CA certificate and the certificate by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Held that - The plain reading of the endorsement is that the buyer of goods from the respondent would not be entitled to avail of any credit of Special Additional Duty. Therefore, even if the invoice is taken as primary evidence, the endorsement therein is in accord with the certificates issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the Chartered Accountant. It does not support the contention on behalf of the Revenue - the findings of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant our interference - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order allowing refund of Special Additional Duty of customs based on findings of fact regarding passing on of duty to buyers and admissibility of evidence.

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenges the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Appellate Tribunal allowing the respondent's claim for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of customs.

2. The Revenue raises questions of law regarding the Tribunal's consideration of evidence on the sale invoice showing passing on of duty to buyers and the admissibility of secondary evidence in the form of certificates without scrutiny of their contents.

3. The Tribunal found that the 4% Special Additional Duty was not passed on to buyers based on the Chartered Accountant's Certificate and the Certificate by the Superintendent of Central Excise, contrary to the Revenue's argument.

4. The Revenue argued that the invoice indicated passing on of the duty to buyers, but the Tribunal's findings were based on the certificates and the plain reading of the endorsement on the invoice, which did not support the Revenue's contention.

5. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as not perverse, as they were consistent with the certificates and the endorsement on the invoice, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as the questions raised did not give rise to any substantial question of law.