https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766145 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying refund of customs duty. The tribunal found that the appellant importer had paid import duty twice for the same consignment through their customs broker, supported by documentary evidence including Bill of Entry and payment challans. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that appellants neither paid the duty nor provided evidence of bearing the burden, CESTAT determined that customs brokers acting as agents can pay duty on behalf of importers who reimburse on actual basis. The tribunal relied on Gujarat HC precedent in Swastik Sanitary wares Limited, which established that refund is permissible when duty is paid twice due to error and burden not passed to another party. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:42:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766145 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying refund of customs duty. The tribunal found that the appellant importer had paid import duty twice for the same consignment through their customs broker, supported by documentary evidence including Bill of Entry and payment challans. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that appellants neither paid the duty nor provided evidence of bearing the burden, CESTAT determined that customs brokers acting as agents can pay duty on behalf of importers who reimburse on actual basis. The tribunal relied on Gujarat HC precedent in Swastik Sanitary wares Limited, which established that refund is permissible when duty is paid twice due to error and burden not passed to another party. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766145