TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mption. RBD Palm Olein attracts duty based on the tariff value fixed by the Government of India from time to time. While clearing the said goods, the importer had paid the duty on the tariff value notified by the Govt. prior to 03.08.2001. However, the Govt. had enhanced the tariff value vide Notification No. 36/2001 dated 03.08.2001. Therefore, differential duty was demanded based on the higher tariff value fixed w.e.f. 03.08.2001. The importer paid the differential duty under protest and preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon. High Court of Madras. The Hon. High Court of Madras vide Order in Writ Petition No. 15635/2001 dated 04.06.2015, held that as long as the impugned Notification has been notified in the Official Gazette, to the pub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es in spite of having submitted a Chartered Accountant s Certificate. Shri AKS. Moorthy however concedes that documents like invoices etc., to support their claim that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, had not been submitted before the original authority. He however contends that these had been produced before the Commissioner (Appeals), the fact of which has been recorded in para-2 of the impugned order. He further submits that in the statement of accounts it was initially shown as receivables and later charged as profit and loss account only on the advice of their auditors since their appeal in the Hon. High Court was pending for a long time. In the circumstances, Shri AKS. Moorhy pleads that the appeal may be allowed. 3. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prove that they have not passed on the incidence of duty. All that is then required to be seen whether the impugned warehoused goods after their clearance have been sold by appellant well before the payment of differential duty of customs and/or whether the burden of differential duty has been passed on in any of the invoices. The representative for the appellants is vociferous in his contention that they have paid the differential duty only after sale of all the goods was completed. However, on their own admission, all these documents have not been produced before the sanctioning authority. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants should be given another opportunity before the original authority to prove their bon....