9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndments made in 1991 and the said section does not necessarily have to be read in conjunction with Sections 27C and D of the Act. If the incidence of duty paid on the imported raw material has not been passed on to any other person, then by virtue of proviso to Section 27 (2) of the Act in the case where application for refund had been made prior to 1991, refund due on the duty paid would be given to the applicant. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - appeal dismissed. - MR. P. A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MRS R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant : Mr. Kuryan Thomas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K. A. Jathin, AR ORDER The appellant, M/s. Cochin Shipyard Ltd., filed five ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, the amount rejected was credited to the consumer welfare fund and the claim was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The present appeal is against this impugned order rejecting the refund claim. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that they had entered into an agreement dated 24.04.2002 with Chennai Port trust for design, construction and supply of Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger. While clearing the dredger, the appellant had claimed benefit of the Notification No.21/2002 dated 01.03.2002 which granted exemption from basic duty of customs and additional duty in respect of raw materials and parts used in the manufacture of dredger. The appellant remitted the duty on 14.05.2004 challenged the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account; hence, the authorities cannot hold that the appellant had passed on the duty liability to Chennai Port Trust. As long as the appellant shows the amount as payable to Chennai Port Trust and as a deposit with the Customs Department, it cannot be treated as passed on to Chennai Port Trust. In support, he relied upon the following decisions: Jindal Drugs Ltd vs. CC: 2017 (357) ELT 259 CC vs. Jinal Drugs Ltd.: 2018 (360) ELT 988 (Bom.) Cadbury India Ltd. vs. UOI: 2015 (315) ELT 488 (Ker.) CCE vs. Addison Co. Ltd.: 2016 (339) ELT 177 (SC) Pfizer Ltd vs CCE: 2022 (66) GSTL 122 (Tri.-Mum.) PMP Components Ltd vs. CCE: 2001 (135) ELT 914 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. The Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of sub-section (2) Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest. Provided also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the date of payment of duty or interest in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as the date of purchase of goods by such person. (1A) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28C) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty or interest, in relation to which such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant as per the above Refund provisions has passed on the duty burden to his buyer and therefore, the Commissioner (A) was right in rejecting the refund claim on the question of unjust enrichment. The appellant himself admits to the fact that the Chennai Port Trust, their buyer had advanced the customs duty amount of Rs.2,61,21,513/- to the appellant for discharging their duties on the dredger imported by them. The Chartered Accountant has also certified that customs duty was paid by Chennai Port Trust. The Chief Engineer of M/s. Chennai Port Trust vide his letter dated 19.12.2007 to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) informed that the sum of Rs.2,61,21,513/- has been reimbursed by the Chennai Port Trust to M/s. Cochin Shipyard (appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incidence of such duty in relation to its being passed on to another person would take it within its ambit not only the passing of the duty directly to another person but also cases where it is passed on indirectly. This would be a case where the duty paid on raw material is added to the price of the finished goods which are sold in which case the burden or the incidence of the duty on the raw material would stand passed on to the purchaser of the finished product. It would follow from the above that when the whole or part of the duty which is incurred on the import of the raw material is passed on to another person then an application for refund of such duty would not be allowed under Section 27(1) of the Act. 18. Section 27(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
