9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claims has been rejected on the premise that appellant has not passed the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported certain aluminium foils. At the time of importation,' the duty was payable at the rate of 35% as safeguard duty. Later on, after examination of the issue, the duty redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omer or not and no document has been produced by the appellant to satisfy that the customs duty has not been passed on the buyer. Aggrieved from the same, appellant is before me. 3. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 4. The ld. AR relied on the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the Chartered Accountant certificate does not show that the incidence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority has recorded the fact that duty burden has not been passed on the buyer. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 6. Considered the submission and pursed the Adjudication order. The Adjudicating Authority has recorded the facts as under :- "(iv) The importer submitted that the original certified copy of the respective entry/page of the company' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is applicable to the refund of safeguard Duty or not. Therefore, the argument of ld. A.R. that bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the facts of the case is sustainable. Further, I find that the appellant has been able to prove that the amount is recoverable from the customs and he is able to produce the Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that the amount of excess safeguard duty h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
