TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;The brief facts are that one Mr. Naresh Jogani, proprietor of M/s. Karan Associates and M/s. Veva International had imported some electronic components and filed Bill of Entry on 30-6-2004. The Revenue raised a dispute as to value and against the declared assessable value of Rs. 91,290/- enhanced the value at Rs. 5,41,165/- resulting into additional customs duty amounting to Rs. 84,628/-. Although, the appellant paid the duty and got the goods cleared but disputed the enhancement of value and preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-10-2007 set aside the enhancement of value and accepted the declared value. Thereafter, the appellant preferred refund claim, which was rejected on the ground of u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 27/2004 1-8-2004 Veva International 2.27 9160 SJ-SAL-99 16-11-2004 KA/99/2004 16-11-2004 Jemson Sales Corpn. 5.00 9160 It has been stated that the goods received under the document SJ-PUR-9 dated 1-8-2004 as stock transfer from M/s. Veva International were sold to M/s. Jemson Sales Corpn. which is reflected in above entries. It is inferred from the above that the goods received @ Rs. 2.27 from M/s. Veva International were sold to M/s. Jenson Sales @ Rs. 5. The bill No. KA/99/2004, dated 16-11-2004 raised on M/s Jemson Sales Corpn confirms the above. It reads as follows : - M/s Jemson Sales Corporation 24, Devidayal Trust Bldg., 2nd Floor, 26, Kennedy Bridge, Bombay - 400 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other person and it was more so as there was presumption under Section 28D that incidence of duty has been passed on to buyer. Similarly, Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 702 (Tri.-Chennai) has held that any certificate of Chartered Accountant would not be a substitute for sale invoice, which is a document expressly recognized under Section 28C. As already discussed in the foregoing paras, there are invoices to prove that the appellant has sold the goods at much higher prices than the price at which the goods were imported. Therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original No. 403/2007, dated 19-6-2007 is justified and sustainable on facts and appeal is devoid of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sset side being certified by the C.A. 3.1 The learned Counsel further argues that in view of the clear position obtaining in the Books of Account, wherein the amount is appearing as recoverable and have not been collected from any buyer of the goods and the appellant have suo motu forgone the amount of Rs. 11,780/- towards purported recovery after reducing the amount of normal gross profit. It is further urged that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in error in observing that the appellant have sold the goods at the price much higher than the price they have imported and accordingly, the unjust enrichment is attracted. 3.2 It is further urged that none of the documents produced with accounts or account-statement or balanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e laws : - (i) India Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.-Chennai). (ii) GAIL India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gwalior - 2011 (264) E.L.T. 393 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai v. BPL Ltd. - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 526 (Mad.). (iv) Skycell Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 702 (Tri.-Chennai). 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the sale invoice in the question for re-sale of the imported goods by the appellant were before the Commissioner (Appeals) as I find from para 10 of the impugned order. Th....