Appeal filed against export duty order set aside due to excess payment

The appeal was filed against an order setting aside the Order-in-Original due to excess payment of export duty by the appellant. The Commissioner (A) allowed the Revenue's appeal, contending that duty passing on verification was not done. The appellant argued the excess duty was not passed on, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Judicial Member remanded the case for further verification of financial records to determine duty passing on, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing department appeal and setting aside Order-in-Original due to excess payment of export duty. Verification of passing on incidence of duty by appellant. Compliance with Circular No.7/2008/Cus. and Section 28D of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner (A) setting aside the Order-in-Original due to excess payment of export duty by the appellant. The appellant exported iron ore fines and paid export duty provisionally, later found to be in excess. The refund claim was filed and initially sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner, but the Revenue appealed, contending that the duty incidence passing on verification was not done. The Commissioner (A) allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed without appreciating the facts, emphasizing that the excess duty was not passed on to any other person as confirmed by a Chartered Accountant certificate. The appellant maintained that the Asst. Commissioner had thoroughly examined all documents and financial records, rendering the Commissioner (A)'s findings erroneous. On the other hand, the AR supported the impugned order, citing Circular No.7/2008/Cus. and Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, which require verification of financial records to determine duty passing on.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Judicial Member found it necessary to remand the case to the original authority for further verification. The Member emphasized the need to examine all documents, including the balance sheet and financial records, to ascertain whether the duty incidence had been passed on by the appellant. The decision was to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for a reasoned order after ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 02/01/2017.

---