9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved with the confirmation of the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner (Appeals) by Order No. C. Cus. 140/2003, dated 30-4-2003. The appellants had claimed a refund of Rs. 2,91,045/- being the CVD paid by them, which according to them is not payable in terms of Customs Notification No. 51/2000, dated 27-4-2000. Although, both the authorities agreed that refund is available but, however, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not produced enough evidence to rule out unjust enrichment. It is the duty which was paid as CVD which was not charged to their consumers in export costings. The export costings had been arrived at much before the export and the amounts remained constant. The evidence has not been looked into and no findings have not been arrived at on the evidence. He submits that the order is not a speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd submissions made by the appellants and should have recorded specific findings about the duty element not having been passed on to the consumers. The contention is that the price of export had been fixed much earlier and there was no variation in the same. By mistake, the duty CVD was paid, which was not to be added to the price. They produced evidence. This evidence have been gone into. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
