9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Claim for refund, non-passing on of duty burden, admissibility of refund, unjust enrichment.
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI dealt with a claim for refund of Rs. 3,28,820/- which was held to be admissible to the assessees on merits. However, the amount was directed to be credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the lack of establishment by the assessees regarding the non-passing on of the incidence of duty to their buyers. Regarding the issue of non-passing on of duty burden, the Tribunal noted that although the submission that prices did not change before and after assessment was made, it was not sufficient to prove that the burden cast upon the assessees had been discharged. However, the assessees presented a certificate from a Chartered Accountant certifying that they had not passed on the burden of duty to their customers. Additionally, the balance sheet indicated that the amount was receivable from the revenue authorities. In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court which held that when non-passing of duty burden is confirmed by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant and the duty paid amount is maintained as receivables from the government in the books of account, refund is admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the direction for credit of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund and directed that the amount be refunded to the assessees as they had demonstrated that they were not affected by the bar of unjust enrichment, thereby allowing the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, J.
|
