TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment and whether the Chartered Accountant's certificate could be accepted to show that the duty element had not been passed on.
Analysis: The refund arose from import of Kraft Paper claimed to be eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 20/88-Cus. The earlier remand had upheld eligibility for exemption, leaving only the bar of unjust enrichment for determination. The Chartered Accountant's certificate stated that the duty element had not been recovered from the customer, the contract price for transformers had been fixed independently, and the Revenue did not rebut that certificate with contrary material. The cited contrary decision was found distinguishable because the certificate there was rejected for not showing examination of cost data and related records, whereas that deficiency was not present here.
Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment, the Chartered Accountant's certificate was accepted, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a properly supported Chartered Accountant's certificate shows that the duty incidence was not passed on and the Revenue does not rebut it with cogent material, the refund claim is not defeated by unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 
