9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Paras 6-10 are reproduced hereinbelow. 6. I have perused the records of the case carefully and considered the rival contentions. The moot point in the instant case is the validity of application of the principle of unjust enrichment on anti-dumping duty and directing that the amount be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund even when granting that the refund is admissible. On this aspect, the pronouncement of the Larger Bench in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in [2001 (129) E.L.T. 162 (Tri. - LB)] is rightly held by the lower authority to be inapplicable to the instant case since the tribunal ruling is applicable only to periods prior to 12-5-2000 [the date of enactment of Finance Act, 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with duly supporting and convincing evidence . The preceding paragraphs give an insight of how the supporting has been examined - all with presumptive assumptions. For example, Para 16(a) contains a presumption that ..the stocks are valued at cost which would normally mean cost/expenditure incurred which naturally includes duties paid, inclusive of ADD.. , which is also carried over in Para 16(b) and Para 16(d). The lower authority erred in trying to dismiss the certification by a licensed professional on the ground that they did not dovetail with his own presumptive inferences not shown to be undoubtedly backed by facts. Similar is the case [Para 16(b)] where he has stated that the relevant break up on the value of raw material consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essed in the case of CCE v. Carona Costmetics Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 396 (sic). In the case law referred to by the ld. SDR I notice that in the case of SRF Ltd. the claim of refund pertained to the capital goods and it was held that amortization had been done which disentitled the claim. The matter had been remanded for de novo consideration. In the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments the Tribunal noticed that the burden of proof of unjust enrichment had not been discharged by the assessee. Both the Apex Court judgments are distinguishable in the light of the other two judgments referred by ld. Counsel in which the certificate of C.A. has been discussed. I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to go back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t does not provide for any provision or any restriction limiting the authority of the adjudicating authority in examining the records of the importer to satisfy himself that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. Therefore, the order is challenged on this ground. 3. Heard the learned SDR in the matter. He prays for remand of the matter, so that the evidence could be scrutinized. 4. The learned Counsel submits that fresh enquiry cannot be made and additional documents cannot be entertained at a belated stage, as entire scrutiny has been completed. In this regard, he relies on the ruling rendered in the case of United Machinery Works (P) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 477 (T). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
