TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal affirms decision on duty refund claim, citing pricing consistency and expert certificates</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in a case involving a refund claim rejected by the Original Authority regarding excess duty paid ... Central Excise – Unjust enrichment – Appellant submitted details of invoice price remained same before and after import to refund claim and furnished C.A certificates that excess duty is shown as receivable in balance sheet and is not passed on to customers Issues:- Refund claim rejected by Original Authority- Unjust enrichment and passing on the duty incidence- Discrepancies in accounting records and receivables- Interpretation of Chartered Accountant and Cost Accountant certificatesRefund Claim Rejection:The case involves the appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore, rejecting a refund claim made by the respondents regarding excess duty paid on imported photo resister chemicals. The respondents had submitted details of pre-import and post-import prices to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The Original Authority rejected the claim, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed it based on the consistency of prices pre and post importation.Unjust Enrichment and Passing on Duty Incidence:The Revenue contested the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the grounds that the claim amount was not properly accounted for in the balance sheets, raising doubts about unjust enrichment. They argued that the prices remaining constant pre and post importation did not negate the passing on of duty incidence, citing legal precedents such as Mafatlal Industries case and Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to prove that duty burden was not transferred to third parties.Discrepancies in Accounting Records and Receivables:The Revenue further pointed out discrepancies in the accounting records, questioning the attribution of the refund amount claimed by the respondents. They argued that the amount shown as receivables did not align with the claimed refund, highlighting inconsistencies in the balance sheets over multiple years. However, the respondents clarified that there was sufficient balance in the receivables account to cover the refund, supported by certificates from Chartered Accountant and Cost Accountant.Interpretation of Chartered Accountant and Cost Accountant Certificates:The Tribunal considered the certificates provided by the respondents' Chartered Accountant and Cost Accountant, which attested to the non-passing on of duty incidence to customers. Relying on legal precedents where such certificates were deemed acceptable proof unless proven otherwise, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the refund claim. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the documentary evidence presented and the satisfactory explanation provided by the respondents.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and expert certificates in determining the passing on of duty incidence, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
