2024 (9) TMI 1555 - AT - Customs

Refund Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Denial Due to Insufficient Evidence on Non-Passing of Duty Incidence.

Enterprise International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

The Tribunal rejected the appeal concerning the refund claim due to the appellant's failure to produce relevant financial documents, such as balance ... Refund of differential duty between the duty already paid and the duty that would have been leviable - benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 - appellant has not produced relevant documents like balance sheet, profit of loss accounts, invoices, cost data and other basic financial records of the relevant periods to rule out unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- This is a case where the refund claim filed by the appellant had been rejected for not having produced relevant / corroborative documents. Certain documents and statements were filed before us along with the appeal. Those documents were found to be not relating to the facts in issue and pertained to Anti-Dumping Duty as against the basic customs duty paid towards the impugned Bills of Entry claiming the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. Ordinarily fresh evidence cannot be entertained at the Tribunal. Rule 23 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 states that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce any additional evidence, either oral or documentary, before the Tribunal. Thus, the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the Original Authority, unless the Tribunal itself feels the need to do so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its judgment in Chittoori Subbanna Vs Kudappa Subbanna [1964 (12) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] recognized that it is possible to include additional grounds in the grounds of appeal by moving a separate application for permission before the appropriate forum for its consideration. No such Miscellaneous Application has been filed in this case. It is found that not only has there been no separate prayer for including fresh documents / evidence, even that submitted is not relevant to the facts of this case and hence the lacunae pointed out by the Original Authority and in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to survive. This being so the appeal merits to be rejected. The lower authority has taken a view which is reasonable, legal and proper - Appeal rejected. Issues: Refund claim rejection due to lack of relevant documents and production of irrelevant evidence before the Tribunal.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) due to the appellant's failure to produce relevant financial records to establish non-passing of duty incidence to consumers. The appellant claimed a refund for the differential duty amount between what was paid and what would have been leviable under a specific notification. The refund was denied based on lack of documents like balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and invoices. The appellant only provided a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the present appeal.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel stated that despite efforts, relevant documents could not be produced. The Authorized Representative argued that since the required documents were still missing, the appeal should be dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the documents submitted during the appeal did not relate to the issue at hand but pertained to a different duty. The Tribunal highlighted that additional evidence cannot be entertained unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Tribunal cited rules stating that parties cannot introduce new evidence without permission. The Tribunal referred to a previous case emphasizing the discretionary nature of admitting additional evidence and the conditions for allowing it.The Tribunal found that no separate application was made for new evidence, and the submitted documents were irrelevant to the case. The Tribunal concluded that the original issue of lack of relevant documents persisted, leading to the rejection of the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities' decision as reasonable and legal, ultimately rejecting the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 27.9.2024, disposing of the case accordingly.