2013 (8) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant succeeded in getting the value declared by them accepted for the assessment and thereafter filed refund claim for the excess duty paid by them. The refund claim for Rs. 2,51,639/- has been rejected on the ground that appellant has not been able to show that there was no unjust enrichment. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant had produced a chartered accountant certificate which certified that the appellant had not passed on the additional duty paid by them to the customers in view of the fact that MRP of the final product manufactured by them was same prior to the importation of the goods and subsequent to importation of the goods. Further he also submits that the appellant had also explained why .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The CA certificate which is the subject of issue is reproduced below: RANGA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTATNS 25th November 2009 To                 The Superintendent of Customs,                 Inland Container Depot,                 Whitefield,                 Bangalore. Dear Sir, Sub: Import of GLUCITEX IT 12 by British Biologicals during 2006 request for refund of Rs. 2,51,639/- CER .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ;   Hence this has not been passed on to the Consumers, but debited to the Profit & Loss of the Company on refund the same shall be offered for taxes. For Ranga & Co. Chartered Accountants Place: Bangalore                                                       Partner Date: 25.11.2009                              &n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rietor did not think of showing this amount either as a disputed amount or as a receivable. This seems to be clear after thought that since the certificate was issued in November 2009. Further as regards the reliance of the learned counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to accept the submissions of the learned AR that the observations of the Supreme Court in the end of the order this finding is a finding of fact based on evidence which does not call for any interference would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not really went to analyze the evidences and the statutory requirements etc. but upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground that this was a finding of fact and it is settled law that as far as finding of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X