9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) by the appellant - importer, whether the same is hit by unjust enrichment. 3. The appellant imported goods for resale. Being entitled to refund of SAD, which is deposited at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner recorded the following finding:- "10. To sum up, the importer had paid all the import duties including the 4% Additional Duty at the time of importation of the subject goods and at the time of sale thereof in the local market he has specifically indicated that no cenvat credit would be admissible against the said sale invoices. Further, the VAT payable on sale of the said goods has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (M.P) towards payment of 4% Additional Duty of Customs." 5. Subsequently Revenue issued show cause notice dated 10.09.2018 alleging that one of the documents relied upon by the appellant in support of their claim of SAD, was a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant - M/s Chirag Jain & Associates of Rohtak, Haryana, who had certified - that the importer has not passed on the burden of addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on merit. The appellant contested the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that, C.A. certificate it is not an essential requirement for sanction of the SAD refund, in terms of the said notification as amended. It was further urged that admittedly the appellant have sold the goods in India after importing and have paid sales tax on the said goods. Admittedly, they are registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of special additional duty (SAD) and has not passed on the same to the buyer of the goods. 10. Accordingly, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in holding that the refund claim was hit under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to refund of the amount of SAD Rs. 5,43,443/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
