TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal's intimation for hearing well in time. However, since in those days his regular authorized representative, Shri K.L. Rekhi, Consultant, was not being allowed to appear before the Tribunal because of introduction of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, he decided to appear before the Bench himself on 3-12-2007. 3. He further stated that he is of 70 years of age and a patient of 35 years old spinal disc problem for which he filed the medical papers of All India Institute of Medical Sciences pertaining to the period from 1973 to 2007. While he was on his way to Delhi Airport at about 04.14 a.m. on 3-12-2007 to catch first flight to Mumbai leaving at 6.00 a.m., he felt recurrence of pain caused perhaps by exposure to early morning....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal, if restored, may be heard on the same date since his being the outstation SSI unit can hardly afford multiple air journeys or overnight stay at Mumbai. 7. The learned SDR did not have any objection for restoration of the appeal. After hearing the learned authorized representative of the appellant at length, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause for absence of the appellant on 3-12-2007, when the case was called up for hearing. I, therefore, recall the ex parte order and restore the appeal to its original number in exercise of powers under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. After restoring the appeal, I accede to the request of the appellant to hear the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appellant was heard in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund claim was payable. 11. The Commissioner (Import), however, reviewed the Assistant Commissioner's Order, inter alia, on the ground of unjust enrichment. In review appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for examining the bar of unjust enrichment. 12. The Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the claim of the appellant on the sole ground that as he has availed depreciation on total cost of the machine in his books of account, it amounted to indirectly passing on the duty incidence to his customers. 13. The appellant has contended as under: (i) He has availed the depreciation in his profit and loss account (balance sheet) under the Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions without disclosing any basis therefor, merely to pass a pro-revenue order. Thus, while the Deputy Commissioner records that he maintained pre-import prices by taking a dip in his profitability, the correct fact is, as stated in the C.A. Certificate and Report, that the role of the subject machine in the cost build up of finished labels was nominal 0.525% but the machine imparted tremendous amount of production efficiency and better quality, looking to which he took a calculated decision to ignore the total cost of this machine in determining his sale prices, maintained his price line and yet his profitability more than doubled (Rs. 16 lakhs in pro-import year became Rs.34 lakhs in post-import year). Therefore, there could be no questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort and furnished a certificate dated February 2, 2006 certifying that incidence of customs duty was not passed on to the customers. The certificate is detailed and exhaustive. It concludes as under: "Conclusion : The conclusion that emerges from the above facts is that there was neither any need for passing on to the customer any part of the customs duty paid on the subject machine nor was it in fact passed on to customers either directly or indirectly. Further, in spite of absorbing itself, the whole of import duty paid on the machine, the overall increased efficiency, cost economy and faster turn over which the machine generated, improved the firm's profitability in the post-import years as seen from the Balance Sheet position summari....