9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President].-1 . The appellants had filed 54 Bills of Entry for import of CKD parts of UNO/Siena cars. They also filed 105 Bills of Entry for import of CKD parts of such cars. The Bills of Entry were assessed and assessments on transaction value were accepted. Consequently refund claim for Rs. 14,80,310 - in respect of 54 Bills of Entry was filed. Refund claim for Rs. 1,10,32,895/- was filed in respect of remaining 105 Bills of Entry. By Order-in-Original No. 562/06, dated 31-8-2006, the adjudicating authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 14,60,753/- paid on account of Revenue Deposit covered against 52 out of 54 Bills of Entry; vide Order-in-Original No. 561 /06 dated 31-8-2006, the adjudicating author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Balance-sheet was showing the refund amount as recoverable from the Customs and a certificate from Chartered Accountant confirmed the same, the incidence of duty covered by the said Revenue Deposit had not been passed on to any third person so as to attract the bar of unjust enrichment. The appellants had also drawn the attention of the adjudicating authority to the fact that cost audits have been carried out by M/s. Nanabhoy Co. C.As. and their reports confirm the negative margin on the product sold for the same period during which the Revenue Deposit under consideration for the refund has been sanctioned. 4. The Revenue, in its grounds of appeal before the Commissioner tour (Appeals), has raised the following points in support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms authority. The Entry original authority had noted that the amount of Revenue Deposit was not charged by them to the Profit and Loss Account but had been included in the or the Balance-sheet as advance recoverable in cash or kind. Therefore, it is not correct for the Revenue to plead that the adjudicating authority had not examined the filing expenditure head to ascertain as to what amount, of duty formed part of the cost The Revenue's contention that the original authority has not considered any of the reports is also not correct, as we find that one of the cost audit reports was placed by the appellants themselves before the adjudicating authority and the cost audit report covers the period in which the Revenue Deposit under referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
