TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rate of duty of CVD @ 1% advalorem by virtue of Sl. No. 263A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. However, the original authority rejected the claim of refund filed on the ground that exemption envisaged under Sl. No. 263A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as amended was conditional notification upon the importer satisfying certain conditions and on demonstration of such compliance before the assessment of goods. The appellant appeared not to have complied with the same. Therefore, the assessment of the bills of entry made originally should be treated as final assessment of the goods and the benefit of the notification could not be made available at a belated stage for claiming refund of such duty paid without having challenged the order of the assessment. It was also held that the judgement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd., referred above was about availability of concessional rate of duty on goods and was not about admissibility of claim for refund of duty made without the assessment made in the bill of entry having been challenged. The original authority further held with reference to the test of unjust enrichment in terms of Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide an order dated 06.02.2017 and 20.02.2017. He would submit that the said judgment of Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd., has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the following decisions. i) Vishal Video and Appliances Ltd., Vs. UOI in writ petition No. 7851/2016 order allowed on 05.09.2016. ii) Intex Technologies (India) Limited writ petition No. 10618/2016 allowed by a judgment dated 08.11.2016 and upheld by the Apex Court by an order dated 07.07.2017 by dismissing SLP filed by the petitioner. iii) Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd., writ petition No. 2102/2017 allowed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 26.07.2017 iv) Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd., writ petition 45551- 45554/2016 allowed vide an order dated 16.10.2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Micromax Informatics Vs. CC (Cargo), Chennai writ petition No. 3486/2016 allowed by judgment dated 18.04.2017 by Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 5. It is his further submission that the above series of judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Karnataka and Madras are on identical set of facts. It is his submission that since the impugned order in Order-in-Original has gone beyo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed on the incidence of duty. In the absence of any contrary evidence, we have to hold that the Chartered Accountant's Certificate as produced by appellant needs to be accepted. 10. Secondly, we do find that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd., is specifically on this point and with great respect, I reproduce the relevant paragraphs: "11. By the impugned order dated 7th July, 2016, Respondent No. 4 rejected the petitioner's refund application. As far as the decision of the Supreme Court in SRF Ltd. (supra) was concerned, Respondent No. 4 chose to highlight in bold letters in the impugned order the fact that the Department had filed a review petition in the Supreme Court which had been admitted and was pending consideration. As far as the decision of this Court in Micromax Informatics (supra) was concerned, Respondent No. 4 again highlighted in bold letters in the impugned order that "the above order of the Hon'ble High Court has not been accepted by the Department and the Department has now decided to file a SLP before the Apex Court against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court." Respondent No. 4, therefore, chose to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected the refund claim in Yu Televentures (supra). 5. It is contended lastly by the respondents that this Court should not grant relief in this case since there is no ascertainment as to whether the CVD was in fact passed on and collected from the end user. The petitioner, on the other hand, submits that all relevant documents, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate as required by the rules were furnished. The relevant part of the CA's certificate reads as follows: "D. That for the purposes of examining the clause of unjust enrichment to the importer in respect of subject refund claim we have verified the importer's Books of Accounts and other relevant documents and record of the goods. Based on such verification we have satisfied ourselves." 6. This was not a ground for rejection. We find no force in the submission. It is accordingly rejected. 7. Since the facts are identical, we are of the opinion that the operative portion of the order should be identical to the one in Yu Televentures (supra). It is hereby directed consequently that the petitioner's refund claim is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Es could not have been shown in the balance sheet for FY 2014-15. Indeed, the mere fact that this amount was not shown as outstanding during the year 2014-15 would not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to claim refund. The petitioner cannot possibly be denied refund if it, in fact, did not pass on the burden of CVD to its customers. 25. What respondent No. 4 had to examine was whether the claim of the petitioner that it had not passed on the incidence of CVD in respect of the above B/Es for 27th March, 2015 to 31st March, 2015 to the customer was supported by proper documentation. 26. Here it is interesting to note that the petitioner submitted the same CA certificate and documents (including sales invoices) for the aforementioned period as well as for the period June and July, 2015. Respondent No. 4 has accepted these very documents for the claim in respect of June and July, 2015. Pertinently, respondent No. 4 observes in respect of those invoices as under : "I find that the sales invoices of June, 2015 and July, 2015 produced by the importer do not reflect the CVD amount separately which, prima facie, indicate that the burden of SAD has not been....