2018 (7) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....06.2018 and none appeared for the appellant and the case is adjourned for today. Again nobody appeared for the appellant. From this is appears that the appellant is clearly not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, I proceed to decide on the merits of the case. Heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the records including the submissions made in the appeal. 2. The appellant herein imported 1274.19 metric tonnes (MT) of shredded steel scrap declaring a value of USD 352/MT (CIF). This value was not agreed to by the assessing officer and he enhanced the value to USD 408/MT vide Order-in-Original No.52/2015 dated 02.03.2015. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the Order-in-Orig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ESTAT, Chennai, in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. The learned Assistant Commissioner had rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had utilized the rawmaterials in their integrated steel plants manufacturing structural steel products and full incidence of such duty is passed on to the buyer of such goods. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal, rejected their appeal holding that the burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the incidence of duty is being borne by them and in the absence of the same, the refund as claimed cannot be sanctioned. 4. The present appeal is against this Order-in-Appeal on the following grounds: (a) 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

....llant had imported steel scrap and used it to manufacture products which they then sold. Of the total amount, the CVD and SAD portion of the differential duty has already been taken as CENVAT credit. They have claimed refund of the BCD portion. They have not produced any evidence to substantiate that this portion was not included in the cost of their final products and thereby the burden has not been passed on to the consumers. Thus, they have failed in discharging their burden of proving that the unjust enrichment does not apply to their case. Even in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) they have not produced any documents to substantiate their claim that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to their case. Even in th....