9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involves the refund claim of Rs. 58,47,182/- by the appellant, which was sanctioned but ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 28-B of the Customs Act, 1962. Summary: The appeal arose from the Order-in-Appeal confirming the Order-in-Original sanctioning the refund claim but directing the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing motor cycles, imported components from Japan, leading to a dispute with the Customs authorities. The appellants filed refund claims for the years 1989-90 to 1993-94, seeking direction for adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but directed it to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to lack of evidence of non-passing of the claimed amount to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. Arguing the appeal, the appellant's advocate contended that the refund claim was not hit by provisions of the Customs Act or unjust enrichment, citing the Apex Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries case. The advocate argued that the lower authority's decision contradicted the law laid down by the Apex Court. The advocate also emphasized that the appellants had not passed on the duty incidence to customers. The advocate relied on various case laws to support the claim that refund claims from provisional assessments do not attract provisions on unjust enrichment. He presented evidence, including vouchers and invoices, to show that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The advocate urged that the impugned order be set aside based on the Apex Court's judgment and the factual circumstances of the case. After considering submissions and records, the Tribunal observed that the Apex Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries case applied to the present case. The Tribunal held that the appellants' claim for refund could not be denied under Section 27(1)(i) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal also found evidence in balance sheets and certificates indicating that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted consequential benefits to the appellants under the law.
|
