9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Tariff. They approached the Commissioner (A) who ordered that the impugned imports were eligible for the exemption claimed and that the assessee was eligible for a refund of Rs. 8,44,187/- paid towards CVD. Accordingly, they claimed refund of the erroneously paid duty. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund of Rs. 8,44,187/- and credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The impugned order was passed sustaining the above order of the original authority when the importer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A). 2. Before the Commissioner (A), the appellants had canvassed their case that refund would not entail unjust enrichment and reiterated the claim for interest on the amount of refund from the date of refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a case of similar facts where the assessee had received refund of erroneously paid customs duty and had furnished evidence for not passing on the same to its customers in the form of an auditor's certificate, their lordships had held that the refund of the excess duty paid would not involve unjust enrichment. In that case the assessee's invoices had shown that the sale price did not include the customs duty and the price of the assessee's product had remained constant before and after they had cleared the imported goods on payment of duty. The Apex Court found that the majority view of the Tribunal, in the order impugned before that court, that the refund of the erroneously paid duty would not entail unjust enrichment was a finding of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the Apex Count relied upon by the appellants, their Lordships had held that the finding of the Tribunal that grant of refund to the appellant in that case would not involve unjust enrichment was found by the Tribunal relying on a Chartered Accountant's Certificate that the duty burden had not been passed on. The Apex Court did not interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. In the Kuremukh Iron Ore case (supra), cited by the appellants, in a case of similar facts where the importer had accounted excess duty paid as receivables from customs and had not treated the same as revenue expenditure forming cost of production of their final products in their balance sheet, the Tribunal held that refund of the said duty amount would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
