Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund arising out of finalization of provisional assessment was liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment, or whether it was payable to the assessee.
Analysis: The refund claim related to provisional assessment under Rule 7. The decisive question was whether the incidence of excess duty had been passed on. The refund amount had consistently been shown in the balance sheet as receivable from the Government under loans and advances and had not been treated as expenditure in the profit and loss account. A Chartered Accountant's certificate also supported the position that the duty burden remained with the assessee. On those facts, the presumption against the assessee was rebutted, and the material did not justify transfer of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and was payable to the assessee, not to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund arising from provisional assessment is shown as a receivable in the balance sheet and is not booked as expenditure, the incidence of duty is treated as borne by the assessee, rebutting unjust enrichment and making the refund payable to the assessee.