2016 (3) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....47/2012-Cus, dated 21-08-2012. It is the case of appellant that they did not claim benefit of notification inadvertently/not being aware of the benefit which was available to them at the time of import. On realizing that duty is not payable, they filed refund claim for Rs. 12,70,132/-. The original authority rejected the claim on two grounds. Firstly that, before claiming refund the appellant has failed to challenge the assessment and as per the law laid in M/s Priya Blue Industries Vs CCE(prev) Chennai, reported in 2004(172) ELT 145(SC) the appellant is not eligible for refund without challenging the assessment. Secondly, that appellant has not established that the incidence of duty has not passed on. The appellant filed appeal and vide th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Mills Ltd is squarely applicable to the first ground of objection raised by Revenue. 4. The second reason for denying the refund is that the claim is hit by unjust enrichment. The learned AR vehemently argued that the appellant has failed to establish by documentary evidence that the incidence of duty has not been passed on. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant had furnished the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant before the Commissioner (Appeals). On perusal of this certificate it is seen that the amount was shown as receivables in the balance sheet. The appellant has furnished the balance sheets also, which reflects the amount of Rs. 12,70,133/- shown as custom refund. In the impugned order the Co....