Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 172 - CESTAT AHMEDABADDenial of refund claim - claim of refund of amount deposited during investigation, confirmed in the original proceedings but tribunal has set aside the part of the demand on the ground of period of limitation - Refund sanctioned but required to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund as the refund sought falls within the ambit of doctrine of Unjust-Enrichment - MRP based duty valuation - Whether in the refund claims filed by the appellant the bar of unjust-enrichment under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable or not - Held that:- Appellant earlier paid duty on MRP at the time of clearance and selling the goods at a MRP. There is no evidence on record brought by appellant that appellant has changed his pattern of sale after July 2005 to the practice what was prevailing before July 2005. As the appellant was following MRP based sale before July 2005 and does not indicate any change in pattern of sale simply saying that amount of ₹ 1,63,59,968/- is shown in their accounts as customs duty receivable, will not be of any evidentiary value that CVD paid has not been recovered from the customers. In view of CESTAT s order dated 26.9.2009 in the case of the appellant the sale prices of ceramic tiles will be deemed MRP for the goods imported and sold after July 2005. By not declaring the MRP at the time of import, it cannot be said that ceramic tiles were not sold at MRP. Further from the case of Seaking marine Services vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2010 (6) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and GAIL India Limited vs. CCE, Gwalior (2010 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), relied upon by the Revenue, the ratio laid down is loud and clear that mere claim of deposit of a money during investigation and production of Chartered Accountant s certificate is not the ultimate fact to hold that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the consumers. In the case of present appellant, it is more glaring as appellant are having a sale pattern of declaring MRP at the time of imports and selling the same at that MRP at the time of sale. There is no evidence on record that sale pattern of MRP has been revised by the appellant based on transaction value/ invoice value, after July 2005 to what was prevailing earlier. As the facts are different from the facts of the relied upon case laws, therefore, the same are not applicable to the present proceedings. An amount paid during investigation, when confirmed by appellate authority as duty, will be in the nature of payment of duty - claim of refund rejected - Decided against assessee.
|