TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judge grants appeal, overturning denial of refund claim based on unjust enrichment. Appellants' evidence deemed satisfactory.</h1> <h3>PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI-I</h3> PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI-I - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 227 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment.Analysis:The case involved the appellants importing goods from a related supplier in Germany, leading to provisional assessment with a 5% revenue deposit. Upon finalization, they became eligible for a refund of Rs. 1,33,398. The refund claim was denied due to unjust enrichment, prompting a review by the Commissioner. The appellants presented evidence, including balance sheets and a Chartered Accountant's certificate, to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on. The lower authorities rejected these arguments, emphasizing the lack of specific evidence.The advocate for the appellants argued that since the deposits were clearly shown in the balance sheet as receivable and not in the expenses account, the duty incidence passing on did not occur. Additionally, the Chartered Accountant confirmed the non-inclusion of the deposit in consumption valuation. The Commissioner's rejection was critiqued for not specifying the required evidence and denying the refund solely on this basis.The Departmental Representative contended that merely showing the amounts as receivable did not guarantee non-apportionment to expenses later, necessitating proof from the appellants to establish the duty incidence non-passing.Upon review, the Judge found the appellants' evidence satisfactory. The deposits were clearly marked as receivable and not part of expenses, as supported by the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Commissioner's demand for additional unspecified evidence was deemed unwarranted, especially since the existing documents were not disputed. Consequently, the Judge overturned the Commissioner's decision, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
