AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of clearance of goods from customs, crane was held as chargeable to duty under Tariff Heading 8426.41 and duty of Rs. 1,63,69,482/- was assessed. The appellants agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1 crore and paid the same. Thereafter, chargeability of duty on the crane was contested and finally the Tribunal in its Order No. 136/03-B, dated 20-12-2002 allowed the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief including refund of the amount paid as duty towards the demand. Appellants accordingly filed refund for Rs. 1 crore for the duty paid by them on the disputed assessment of crane which was sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority. Revenue filed the appeal against this order of sanction of refund before the Commissioner (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he could have called the financial records which was not done. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law. 3. It was argued for the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the refund on the ground that C.A. certificate is not conclusive evidence. It was pleaded that following decisions of the Tribunal and Delhi High Court support this view that the certificate of C.A. is not itself conclusive proof to hold that duty incidence has not been passed on to another person :- 1. CC, Mumbai v. Eltech Enterprises - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 877 (Tribunal). 2. Jaipur Polyspin Altd. v. Union of India - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 346 (Del.). 3.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance was also placed on Sections 27(2) and Section 28D of the Customs Act, in support of this contention. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that only ground on which refund claim was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order is that the certificate of Chartered Accountant is not conclusive evidence. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) was free to call the financial records of the appellants to check whether statements made in the certificate of the Chartered Accountants are correct. He could have also got the records summoned before him or got the records inspected on his behalf and the appellants could have got the opportunity to rebut if the refund application could have been rejected....