9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Ms. M. Swarupa, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the respondents filed refund claim for refund of SAD in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.9.2007 as amended. The original authority rejected the refund claim observing that the respondent has not passed the test of unjust enrichment. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal directing the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim No.21/2009 and 45/2009 and 2/009 for claim No. 87/2009. That appellants have not shown the amount as receivables in the relevant financial year and therefore they have failed the test of unjust enrichment. He argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in ordering for sanction of refund. 3. On behalf of the respondent, ld. counsel Ms. Swarupa submitted that the only ground on whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent had complied with both these requirements. The only objection taken by the department is that the amounts are not shown as receivables for the year 2007 - 08. She submitted that the imports were made during the fag end of 2007 - 08 and goods were partly sold in 2008 - 09. The respondent is eligible to claim refund only after VAT is paid. The amounts have been shown as receivables in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cing evidence that VAT has been discharged on sale of the imported goods. This being so, it cannot be insisted that the respondents have to show the CVD as receivables immediately after the import of the goods. When the circular prescribes for production of a certificate issued by a Chartered accountant as well as self-declaration by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
