2018 (2) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diting of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a quantity of 108.50 MTs of PVC floor sweep and filed the Bill of Entry dated 31.7.2010, by declaring the value of the same as Rs. 22,69,275/-. The department had resorted to the provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant is that, since the appellant had borne the incidence of excess paid duty by itself and had not passed on the same to the buyer or any other person, instead of crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the same should be refunded to the appellant. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that upon verification of the books of account maintained by the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the same should be refunded to the claimant only, when adequate documentary evidences were produced showing that the incidence has been borne by him and not been passed on to any other person. Thus, he submits that the onus entirely lies with the appellant to prove that the incidence of duty liability has not been passed on, which has not been satisfacto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he CVD component, such certificate cannot be considered for deciding the issue regarding applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Further, I find that the appellant has not produced any other evidence to show that it had not passed on the duty incidence to any other person. The submissions of the ld. Advocate that the goods were sold at a lesser price than the price at which the Bill of....