9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance sheet as “Receivables” from Customs. Other certificates from the Chartered Accountant could also be produced in different circumstances to substantiate the claim that the amount involved had not been passed on to their buyers/customers. At no stage during the proceedings, the appellants claimed that their financial records had shown the amount claimed as “Receivables” from Customs - C/58/2007 - 139/2009 - Dated:- 4-2-2009 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order ].- M/s. Sheth Impex imported a consignment of medical equipment and cleared the same under Bill of Entry No. 627594/12-5-04. Later on, they discovered that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced before the original authority. Those invoices did not bear the signature of the appellants. A cost comparison chart produced be fore him was also certified by advocates and not any Chartered Accountant. A certificate from the Chartered Accountant who had issued the certificate produced before the original authority was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). This document dt. 27-9-06 certified that the appellants had not passed on the impugned amount of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Chartered Accountant's certificate dt. 27-9-06 was fresh evidence and could not be admitted by him in terms of Rule 5 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Relying on a decision of the Tribunal in Shree Ram Industries v. Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) Rules, 1982 (Rules). Basic Customs Duty (sic). There is no dispute that Rule 3 of the Rules does not permit admission of fresh evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the Lamina Foundries Ltd. case (supra), relied on by the appellants, the Tribunal had observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) having admitted the evidence before him for the first time should have remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the matter afresh. 5. I find that, in the instant case, the additional evidence produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not admitted. He found that such evidence could not be admitted in terms of Rule 5 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to "Loans and Receivables". The Tribunal upheld the claim of the appellants therein that they had not been allowed an opportunity to substantiate their claim with the required financial documents. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority. I find that, in the instant case, the original authority had directed the appellants vide his letter dt. 22-9-05 that they were required to establish that the refund claimed had not been passed on to their buyers and that refund would not involve unjust enrichment. They were specifically told that a certificate from the Chartered Accountant would meet the requirement provided it was certified that the Impugned amount was recorded in their books of accounts/balance sheet as "Receivable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
