9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.2,18,91,298/- consequent to the Final Order dated 17.6.2011 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (PR), New Delhi. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 3.11.2011 proposing to reject refund of Rs.2,18,91,298/- and thereafter, Corrigendum dated 6.1.2012 for Rs.3,18,91,298/- for calling for information and proposing to transfer the same to the consumer welfare fund alleging that the amount has been passed on to others and not borne by the appellant. On adjudication, the amount though sanctioned was transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.2,18,91,298/- was claimed by the appellant from the customs department by filing a proper refund claim. He has submitted that though the amount sanctioned as refund was Rs.3,18,91,298/- and order to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, in fact, the amount of refund which they claimed after adjustment of the penalty imposed on them during the settlement proceedings is Rs.2,18,91,298/- which they have been contesting in the present appeal. 3.1 The learned advocate has submitted that initially the amount had been deposited under protest and the excess payments made due to computation error by the department is an admitted and undisputed fact, hence, the amounts paid by the appellant over and above the settlement amount of duty and inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or discharging the duty liability initially and the excess payment, if any, is to be refunded to the M/s. Microsoft Corporation. Further, the appellant has shown the excess amount as 'receivable' from the department in its books of accounts as on 30.09.2012. In support, they relied on the Chartered Accountant's Certificate dated 07.11.2012 enclosed with the paper book. Further, they have submitted that in the Financial Year ending 31.03.2023, the amount of refund is shown as Rs.219 lakh as 'receivable from customs authority'. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Referring to the order of the Honourable Settlement Commission, the learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. The short issue involved in the present appeal for consideration is whether the excess amount of Rs.2,18,91,298/- sanctioned as refund but transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund is correct or otherwise. 6.1 The facts not in dispute are that the appellants and other similarly situated noticees who purchased the software from M/s. Microsoft, approached the Settlement Commission against the case booked by DRI alleging undervaluation of the imported goods and consequently, short-payment of customs duty. The Settlement Commission after analysing the whole issue recorded its finding at para 78 and the settlement amount has been recorded against each of the parties. In the case of the appellant, the total amount of duty and interest settled was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorities to Microsoft not exceeding the total amount paid by the Microsoft under the said Agreement and such refund will occur within 60 days from receiving such refund. Therefore, the amount was received from the Microsoft as an interim arrangement to meet their liquid cash flow and as per the said agreement, they are required to repay the excess amount to M/s. Microsoft. Also, after the Settlement Commission's order acknowledging the excess payment, the amount has been shown by them in their books of accounts as 'receivable'. 7. On a careful analysis of the order of Settlement Commission and the Agreement dated 20.5.2009 between the appellant and the Microsoft Corporation, it is clear that the entire amount of duty and interest has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Settlement Commission has recorded a finding to this effect, quantifying the settlement amount. Therefore, we do not find any discrepancy of not showing the excess amount as receivables before the Settlement Commission's order in their books of accounts which has been successively every year thereafter has been shown including for the financial year ending 31.3.2023. In other words, they have been showing the amount as 'receivable' in their books of accounts from 2012-13, therefore, the refund amount has not been passed on by the appellant to any other person.
9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
( Order pronounced in Open Court on 15. 04. 2024 ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
