9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, MCD, New Custom House, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent M/s. Kavi Commercial Company Ltd., Mumbai filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,32,672/- under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the cargo imported vide Bill of Entry No. 3352 dated 22-10-1999, manifested quantity of 65 coils of Hot Rolled Steel Coils, 2 coils short landed. The refund claim was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, however, he order to re-credit the claimed amount in the consumer welfare fund on the ground that the respondent failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on by them. The said Order-in-Original was challenged by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment aspect and has failed to take into account any other aspects like sales bills, documents relating to placing of order etc. 3.3 The applicant placed reliance of following judgements in favour for their contention : a. Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Mafatlal Industries Limited [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)], b. Mumbai Tribunal judgment in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engineers Ltd. [2004 (174) E.L.T. 54 (Tri.-Mum.)] c. Judgment in the case of M/s. Eltech Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [1999 (112) E.L.T. 877] d. Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of M/s. Sahaka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Hearing held on 21-12-2010, was attended by Shri S.P. Chhabria, Deputy Commissioner on behalf of applicant and by Shri Kailash Didwania on behalf of the Respondent. The applicants sought 21 days time to submit reply to the contention of applicants made during Personal Hearing, however, no such reply received from the applicants in this regard. 6. Govt. has gone through records of the case and submissions made by the Respondents and Applicants and the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that short landing of goods and consequential refund of Rs. 1,32,672/- is not in dispute. The refund was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority, however, he order to re-credit the claimed amount in the consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on short landed goods for Rs. 1,32,672/- has not been passed on by the Respondent. Further the Balance Sheet submitted by the respondents showns the claimed amount as outstanding towards customs Government notes that the respondent has stated that they were never specifically asked to produce documents like sales bills/sales invoices w.r.t. unjust enrichment. 9. Government also observes that the judgements relied upon by the applicants do not compulsory ask for sales bills/sales invoices alone as a proof that duty incidence has not been passed on. Moresoever the same was not specifically asked to produce by the applicant. Non-availment of Modvat credit, C.A. certificate to the effect that the duty incidence has not been passed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
