2005 (6) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-5-95 to 24-8-95. In view of the investigation by Special Valuation Branch Cell, the appellants made a provisional clearance on execution of a written bond for a value of Rs. 4,83,200/- at the instance of the Customs authorities. The appellants paid 5% extra duty deposit on each one of their clearances which were totally 14 in number. The total amount paid as extra duty deposit worked out to Rs. 4,18,574/- On 28-8-1995, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Valuation Branch (SVB) informed the appellants that the invoices value for imports have been accepted. On that basis, an assessment was completed. Consequent to the completion of the assessment, the appellants have filed refund application on 20-12-2000 before the Deputy Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same, the authorities should have followed the Tribunal rulings and allow the appeal. (iv) The appellants proved beyond doubt that the amounts are shown as receivables as on 31-3-2001 as per standard accounting practice. The appellants submitted enormous evidence in support of their plea that the amounts are shown as receivables only as on 31-3-2001. The appellate authority has chosen to reject it by presuming own reasons without any basis in law. (v) The lower authority ignored the documentary evidence in the form of delivery challans, invoices, Chartered Accountant's certificate and extracts of Books of account, all of which clearly showed that the appellants had not passed on the incidence of extra duty deposit made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the required sum as extra duty deposit. In other words, the amount paid by the appellants at the instance of the Customs authorities is duty deposit only. The Customs authorities had doubt about the value shown in the invoices and on investigations, it was found that the value shown was correct. In these circumstances, even without any letter or application from the appellants, the department is duty bound to refund the deposit. The appellants have furnished enormous evidence to show that the extra duty deposit has not been passed on to the buyers of the goods. They have explained the reason for showing the amount in the accounts of the year 2000-01 as the amount receivable and not in the year 1995. They have explained that in the year 19....