9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner(Appeals) rejected the refund claim holding that the appellants are not able to produce such incontrovertible evidence to prove the burden of differential duty paid in the form of revenue deposit had not been passed on to the buyers. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal passed the following order: We have considered the submissions made by both sides and also examined the records placed by the Ld. Advocate of the appellants before us. In the annexure I to their reply dated 15.11.2006 we find that there is a break up given by the appellants in their balance sheet showing as revenue deposit. From the impugned order it is seen that the adjudicating authority has not considered the same and without examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim made by the importer in their written submission dated 18.03.2010 and the aspects certified by the said CA's certificate dated 17.05.2010 were verified from the various documents submitted by the importer, viz. the photocopies of Bills of Entry submitted were tallied with the RD amounts shown in the financial records i.e. 5% Customs Duty Deposit Account (Ledger Account) and it was observed that the year wise Legers submitted by the importer contained entries which pertained to some other financial year and were not relevant in the particular Financial Year. For example, in the Ledger for the financial year 1990-1991 two entries relating to the date 22.03.1990 which pertain to the financial year 1989-1990 were found. Further, in the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n para 12 of the adjudication order that Bills of Entry have been filed on certain dates but the payment of revenue deposit does not reflected in the balance sheet of the respective financial year. Therefore, they failed to show the amount of revenue deposit or receivable from the department, is not correct as in those cases Bills of Entry were filed in the month of March but duty was paid in the month of April, therefore, it was not reflected in the financial record of the said particular year. In these circumstances, the impugned order is to be set aside. This point was raised by the appellants before the Commissioner(Appeals) who did not give any finding on this aspect and rejected the refund claim in toto. 5. On the other hand, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
