9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and pocket torches after filing three Bills of Entry. The declared value of Rs. 14,79,304/- was not accepted. The Original Authority enhanced the value to Rs. 31,06,897/- and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 6,25,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 1,75,000/-. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty, fine and penalty. The duty paid comes to Rs. 18,71,312/-. The appellants challenged the orders of the lower authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 10-10-2003 set aside the order of the lower authority loading the value of the goods imported and imposing fine and penalty. Consequent, to the favourable order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 17,62,044/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angabad - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 499 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. The learned JDR Shri K. Sambi Reddy reiterated the impugned Order in-Appeal. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The lower authority has already refunded the fine and penalty. The dispute is only with regard to the refund of duty. The main objection of the lower authority is that there are two certificates of the Chartered Accountant, which differ in particulars. It is stated that the certificate dated 10-11-2003, the sale value is shown as Rs. 21,44,890/-. However, in the certificate dated 23-8-2004 the sale value is shown at Rs. 23,84 The difference comes to Rs. 2,39,946/-. In our view rejecting the entire refund amount to the tune of Rs. 9,62,044/- on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g amounts from Rajendra Trading Co., for the entire year, which includes the above payment. It should be borne in mind that the Chartered Accountant issues his certificate only on the basis of the documents produced by the appellants. When these clearly indicate that the goods have been sold much below the landed cost, it is very clear that the duty burden has not been passed on to the buyer. Thus, there cannot be any question of unjust enrichment. Hence, the appellants are entitled for the refund of the amount, which is equal to the difference between the duty actually paid and the duty payable on the basis of the transaction value. The discrepancy in the Chartered Accountant's certificate cannot come in the way of arriving at a decision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
