2015 (6) TMI 997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amine its sales invoices etc. Therefore, refund is allowed. - Matter remanded back
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri V. Rama Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Reddy, DC (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are in appeal against Orders-in-Appeal No. 437/MCH/AC/CFS/(M)(I)/2012, dated 1-8-2012 and No. 439/MCH/AC/CFS/ (M)(I)/2012, dated 1-8-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I, whereby the rejection of the refund claim have been upheld in the present appeals on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. As the facts are common, relating to refund of 1% National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) deposited by mistake, both the' appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposal. The d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e refundable amount as claimed with the Bill of Entry. Further, in the case of Shyam Texolene, no amount is mentioned in the balance sheet. In the Balance sheet as on 31-3-2009, the amount shown as receivable from the Customs department is ₹ 61,985/-. Further it was found that the duty paying challan shows the duty paid on 3-4-2009, and the same is shown in the balance sheet as on 31-3-2009, which appeared to be not correct. Further anomaly noticed was that the amount of refund claim was shown under the head, investment & other, in the Balance Sheet, which means the same is added in the costing, the amount should have been shown under the head 'Loans and Advances'. Further, the appellant has not filed the Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2010 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is stated that classification of the amount in the balance-sheet for the presentation purpose is not a deciding factor. The deciding factor is that the appellant has shown the amount as recoverable, which is not disputed and as such the rejection of refund on this ground is bad. It is further urged that the appellant has filed C.A. certificate a copy of which have been annexed in the appeal paper book at page 83, which states that- "As required for examination of the principle of unjust enrichment in the case before sanction of above mentioned refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, this is certified that the burden of excess customs duty paid by the importer has not been passed on by the appellant (assessee-importer) to the buye .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X