9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that if the amount is refundable to the claimant, then the same may be credited to the CWC. However, the proviso clause contained therein permits grant of refund to the claimant/applicant, if the incidence of duty amount has not been passed on to any other person and the same has been borne by it - In this case, it is an admitted fact of record that the appellant did not submit the evidence either before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal to substantiate its claim that it had suffered the duty incidence by itself and not passed on the same to the buyers or any other person. Thus, as per the statutory mandates, the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit of refund and in such an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d credited such excess paid duty amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) on the ground that the appellant had failed to fulfil the conditions of unjust enrichment inasmuch as it had failed to prove that the incidence of excess paid duty has not been transferred to any other person and the same has been borne by it. The adjudication order was appealed against and the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order with the direction to the original authority for sanction of the refund amount along with interest to the appellant. The said order dated 07.05.2009 of the Appellate Commissioner was challenged before the CESTAT, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.05.2011 by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that if the amount is refundable to the claimant, then the same may be credited to the CWC. However, the proviso clause contained therein permits grant of refund to the claimant/applicant, if the incidence of duty amount has not been passed on to any other person and the same has been borne by it. In this case, it is an admitted fact of record that the appellant did not submit the evidence either before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal to substantiate its claim that it had suffered the duty incidence by itself and not passed on the same to the buyers or any other person. Thus, as per the statutory mandates, the appellant should not be eligible for the benefit of refund and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
