9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f product. Even though the amount was not shown as receivable but it is included in the closing stock as on 31st March, 2011. The said amount has not become part of expenditure and therefore, cannot be treated as absorbed in the cost of final product. In the financial year 2011-12 admittedly the said amount shown as receivable in the balance sheet as on 30th September, 2011. With this fact it is clear that right from the closing position of 31st March till 30th September, 2011 the amount of refund has not been absorbed in the cost of final product. Therefore, the question of passing of incident of the said amount does not arise. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.11005 of 2013 - A/12363/2021 - Dated:- 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the refund is hit by unjust enrichment. 03. Shri Chandan Kumar, learned General Manager (Finance) of the respondent company submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborately given the finding how this amount is not hit by unjust enrichment. He submits that even though the amount in question has not been shown as receivable on 31st March, 2011 the same was included in the total value of the stock as on 31st March, 2011 and the same was carried forward as opening balance in the year 2011-12 therefore, the amount which included in the closing stock as on 31st March, 2011 as per accounting principle the same cannot be treated as part and parcel of cost of product. He submits that subsequently the said amount was shown a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,58,594 (-) ₹ 98,853/-) only as receivable in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2011. They have not given any further details about the accounting treatment to the duty in respect of the remaining two bills of entry no. F-68/13.01.2011 F-71/25.01.2011 (involving refund amount of ₹ 38,087/- and ₹ 60,766/- respectively). Thus, I find that the appellant has not been able to rebut the presumption and unjust enrichment in respect of the refund of duty thereon on these two bills of entry and thus this amount has been correctly transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund From the above finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) the fact is not under dispute that the value of three bills of entries in question was included in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
