9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Revenue has not provided evidence to establish the fact as alleged by them and their appeal in this regard fails. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The appeal has stated that the procedure to be adopted for refund of 4% additional duty of customs is given in Board Circular No. 6/2008-Customs (F. No. 401/104/2007-Cus.III) dated 28.4.2008 and Customs Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.6.2011 - As per para 6.2 of the said Board s circular, Statutory Auditors / Chartered Accountants are required to explain how the burden of 4% CVD has not been passed on by the importer and to fulfill the requirements of unjust enrichment. It is found that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant submitted in this case does mention that the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of the refund application, it was observed that the goods were declared as LG Brand Super Multi DVD Re-Writer, LG Brand DVD-Writer Drive etc , whereas the description of goods in the Bill of Entries were LG Brand DVD Writer Drive and LG Brand DVD ROM Drive . Further, though the importer had submitted a Chartered Accountant s certificate, the same was allegedly not in accordance with the Board s Circular as there was no emphatic declaration to the effect that unjust enrichment was not applicable and that the duty was not passed onto the ultimate customers. The proper officer examined the matter, found the claim to be in order and sanctioned an amount of Rs 43,98,398/- as refund of 4% SAD amount to the appellant. Aggrieved by the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2011 of Chennai Custom House dated 14.6.2011 relied upon in the appeal. He stated that the Public Notice required the Chartered Accountant to do 100% verification of invoices before submission of the refund claims. He went on to state that the certificate submitted in this case did not satisfy the same. He stated that the certificate was vague and hence prayed that the Order in Appeal be set aside. 4. We have heard Shri Rohan Muralidharan, learned counsel for the respondent. He stated that there were only minor discrepancies in the description of the goods since the description in the Bill of Entry was a general one and those in the invoice were more specific. This matter has been examined and dealt with in the impugned order by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Department. This being so, it was clear that the said additional duty had not been passed on to the buyers and was retained by them as shown in their books of accounts. He hence requested that the appeal may be rejected. 6. We find that M/s. LG Electronics India P. Ltd. has imported goods claiming exemption under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.9.2007. As noted by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has not produced any documentary evidence at any stage of the appeals to show that discrepancy exists between the description of goods imported and those sold. We hence agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that Revenue has not provided evidence to establish the fact as alleged by them and their appeal in this regard fails. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ical documents in this appeal. Copy of the said documents were produced during the hearing by the respondent. Further we find the allegations in the appeal to be general in nature and does not pinpoint any specific para of the Notification / Circular / Public Notice which has been violated or not adhered to so that the same could be examined in detail. Merely stating that the review order was issued on grounds that the certificate is not emphatic to the effect that unjust enrichment is not applicable and the incidence of duty was not passed on to the ultimate customer , will not suffice, a more focused approach is required. The para relevant to the issue of the Chartered Accountants Certificate as given in Board s Circular No. 6/2008-Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auditor/Chartered Accountant who certifies the importer s annual financial accounts under the Companies Act or any statute, explaining how the burden of 4% CVD has not been passed on by the importer and to fulfill the requirement of unjust enrichment. In addition to the aforesaid the importer shall also make a self-declaration along with the refund claim to the effect that he has not passed on the incidence of 4% CVD to any other person. We find that the Boards Circular only requires the statutory auditor/Chartered Accountant who certifies the importer s annual financial accounts under the Companies Act or any statute, to explain how the burden of 4% CVD has not been passed on by the importer and to fulfill the requirement of unjust en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
