9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customers. In this case it has not been so passed. Learned special counsel for the Revenue vehemently argued that the Chartered Accountant s certificate cannot be relied upon. However, on a query from the Bench, he could not produce any document whatsoever to either establish the fact that duty has been passed on by the respondent or to show that the Chartered Accountant certificate s was incorrect. There are no force in this submission of the learned special counsel. In the absence of any evidence by the Revenue on this count, the submission by the respondent that during the relevant period, M/s Naveen Associates were their Chartered Accountants must be accepted. Even otherwise, there is no requirement in law that a certificate must be issued only by the statutory auditors. So long as the certificate is issued by a Chartered Accountant and it is consistent with the accounts such as Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss statement, the certificate deserves to be accepted. The appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed - Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 51677 of 2022 With Customs Stay Application No. 50424 of 2022 - Final Order No. 50390/2023 - Dated:- 24-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicability of SRF Ltd. (supra); indeed the Revenue s refrain during the hearing was that the amounts could not be refunded because the claims were time-barred and that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. This Court is of opinion that the plea of alternative remedy an unoriginal and frequently used stereotypical defence by public bodies in such cases at least dodges the crux of any dispute, i.e. the liability of the concerned public body or agency on merits. Sans any dispute with respect to facts, this Court finds it entirely unpersuasive, since Article 144 of the Constitution, compels all authorities to give effect to the law declared by the Supreme Court (as in this case, the SRF Limited judgment). The other plea which the Customs had relied on, to defeat the petitioner s refund application was Section 27 (3) which confines refunds to the situations contemplated in Section 27 (2), notwithstanding any judgment, order or decree of the court. This Court is at a loss to observe the relevance of that reasoning, given that SRF Limited (supra) had ruled in principle that import implied a deemed manufacture, without any corresponding obligation on the part of the importer to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)]. According to the learned Special counsel since the Delhi High Court s order was not correct, Assistant Commissioner erred in following the High Court s order and sanctioning the refund and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding such sanction of refund. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference at all. He submits that the Revenue had relied upon the judgement of Mafatlal Industries Limited before the Delhi High Court as recorded in para 8 of the judgement and after considering all the submissions made by the Revenue, Delhi High Court held that the amount claimed was not duty and should not have been recovered by the Customs authorities in the first instance given the declaration of law in SRF Limited and, therefore, the Revenue cannot resist a legitimate refund claim. He submits that if the Revenue is aggrieved by the judgement of the High Court of Delhi the proper forum to agitate is before the Supreme Court. The Assistant Commissioner being a lower quasi-judicial authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no stay on the operation of the said decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. The issue of limitation and Unjust Enrichment under the present appeal, in fact tantamount to contemptuous act. Even this Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against the Judgment dated 06 Aug. 2018 of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. 12. Learned counsel submits that this submission was incorrect inasmuch as M/s Naveen Associates were their statutory auditors during the relevant period. Even otherwise, there is no requirement that the Chartered Accountant s certificate has to be issued by any particular Chartered Accountant under the law. All that is required to be proved is that the burden of duty has not been passed on to another person and the respondent has fulfilled this obligation. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed. 13. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 14. It is undisputed that the issue was decided by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in its judgement dated 06.08.2018 and the matter was remanded to the original authority to decide the refund on merits. It is also evident from the judgment that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment. 18. The first issue was already decided by the High Court and the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) were bound to have followed the order of the High Court as they did. We are surprised as to how Revenue has filed this appeal faulting Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner for following judicial discipline and obeying the orders of the Delhi High Court and asserting that they should have defied the Delhi High Court s order. As far as the unjust enrichment is concerned, from the Chartered Accountant s certificate it is evident that the duty was not passed on and it was treated by the respondent as a receivable. Revenue has not produced even a shred of evidence either to establish that the Chartered Accountant s certificate was wrong or to establish that the duty was indeed passed on to the buyers. Learned special counsel also asserted that M/s Naveen Associates were not the statutory auditors of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent asserts that they were their statutory auditors during the relevant period. In the absence of any evidence by the Revenue on this count, the submission by the respondent that during the relevant period, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
