9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed. The fact of the case is that the appellant filed seven bills of entry during the period 28/11/1997 to 27/2/1998 for clearance of equipment for Acrylic Fiber Plant. These bill of entry were provisionally assessed as matter was under investigation by GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai with regard to the valuation of the imported goods therefore the Revenue has collected a Revenue deposit of 5% amounting to Rs. 96,42,224/-. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai by his Order-in-Original No. S/9-5-GATT/97 /GVC dated 26/10/98 held that the price is considered to be sole consideration and accepted the declared invoice price. The Order-in-Original was reviewed by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned was credited to the consumer welfare fund invoking the provisions of unjust enrichment. The original authority contended that though the appellant have claimed that the amount of refund has been shown in the recoverable and booked under current assets in the balance sheet in the financial records and C.A. Certificate to this effect was also produced, but it was observed that under the head of balances of the deposit with government authorities as on 31/3/1999, the amount shown is Rs. 14.20 crores and balance as on 31/3/1998 is Rs. 5.85 crores from which it was inferred that the Revenue deposit with Custom authority, now claimed refund of Rs. 96,42,224/- has been included in schedule 10 of the balance sheet. It was also contended that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that they have submitted C.A. certificate to this effect. Not only C.A. certificate but also submitted basic financial records such as balance sheet, ledgers, vouchers etc., which clearly shows that the deposit of Revenue deposit was shown as amount recoverable under the head of current assets. He further submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants claim merely on the ground that the C.A. Certificate dated 6/5/2008 issued by Mahesh A. Mehta & Co. and another C.A. Certificate dated 22/5/2013 issued by M/s. S.S. Khotari Mehta & Co. are contrary inasmuch as in C.A. certificate dated 6/5/2008 under the head of custom duty and Revenue deposit as on 31/3/1998 indicated 0.00 whereas in the C.A. Certificate dated 22/5/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of revenue deposit was not claimed by the appellant. Ld. Counsel submitted before us all the records such as balance sheet, ledgers, general vouchers in support of his above submissions. 3. On the other hand, Shri. A.K. Singh, Ld. Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record available in the appeal memo filed as well as documents submitted by the Ld. Counsel at the time of hearing. 5. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) in the remand proceedings rejected the appeal of the appellants mainly on the ground that there is no consistency between two C.A. Certificates i.e. one dated 22/5/2013 issued by M/s. S.S. Khotari M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of account of the appellant that the amount of Revenue deposit has been undisputedly shown as deposit with government authorities under the head of loans and advances in the balance sheet it is sufficient to conclude that the incidence of said revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person. From the facts appearing in the books of accounts, discrepancy in the C.A. certificate is nothing but an apparent error in the C.A. certificate, therefore even without considering the C.A. certificate, only on the basis of books of account itself it can be decided whether the incidence of revenue deposit has been passed on or otherwise. This Tribunal in various judgments consistently taken view that C.A. certificate alone would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
