2015 (5) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Shri S J Sahu, AC (AR) ORDER Per: P S Pruthi: This appeal is directed against impugned Order-in-Appeal in which Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority, who sanctioned the refund but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. The facts are that the appellant imported 'Vitamin B2 Riboflavin' and filed a Bill of Entry. The goods were restricted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of Bill of Entry by suitable debit in the licenses. Therefore, the appellant applied for refund of Rs. 6,13,139/- along with interest of Rs. 27,717/- total amounting to Rs. 6,40,856/-. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund but credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the bar of unjust enrichment was not cleared. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deposit. 4. The learned AR referred to the certificate of the C.A. dated 19.11.2010 bearing Reference No. 423/10 stating that the amount of import duty is not shown separately in the balance sheet, but the same has not been added to the cost of material purchased. 5. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The first point to be examined is whether the amount paid was on account of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to justify his stand and therefore, has not been able to clear the presumption under Section 28D of the Customs Act, according to which he is obliged to prove that the duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyers of goods. Simply stating that the goods were sold at a loss does not establish that the duty incidence was not passed. In fact, the C.A. certificate dated 19.11.2010 clearly state....