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>Appellate Tribunal directs refund case remand: clarify successorship, interest charges, duty passing.</h1> <h3>JK. TYRES & INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CHENNAI</h3> The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case involving refund claims by M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. for excess duty paid on imported goods back to the original ... Refund - Documents for claiming refund - Merger of units - Invoices furnished in support of refund claim not in the name of appellant Issues:Refund claims based on excess duty paid on imported goods; Correlation between interest charges and assessable value; Change of name of claimants affecting refund claims; Relevance of correspondence between merged companies and suppliers; Unjust enrichment aspect not examined by lower authorities.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd., Mysore filing refund claims for excess duty paid on imported brass-coated steel tyre cord. The claims were based on the argument that interest charges for deferred payment were not part of the assessable value. However, the original authority rejected the claims as the evidence provided did not correlate with the import documents, leading to dismissal of the appeal as well.Upon appeal, it was noted that the claimants had undergone a name change due to a merger with M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd., Delhi, later renamed M/s. J.K. Tyres & Industries Ltd. Correspondence between the merged company and suppliers was presented to show the interest charges were for deferred payment. Despite this, both lower authorities rejected the claims without considering the aspect of unjust enrichment.The Appellate Tribunal found the case merited a remand to the original authority for a fresh decision on the refund claims. The party was directed to provide evidence establishing the successorship between the companies, the purpose of interest charges, and the absence of passing on the duty to others. The original authority was instructed to issue a detailed order after examining the evidence and granting the party a fair hearing.To facilitate the above, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appeal for remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation of the refund claims in light of the provided evidence and legal requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
