Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 218 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRefund claim - rejection on the ground that descriptions of the imported goods mentioned in the Bills of Entry, were not exactly the same as reflected in the commercial sales invoices - Held that: - No contrary evidence has been recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to show that the VAT/CST was not paid on the imported goods in the impugned order except observing that VAT/CST amount is not mentioned against each of the imported items cleared/sold as such with the main machines accordingly they failed to fulfil the condition of the Notification. Unjust enrichment - refund claim rejected on the ground that the appellant could not establish that the incidence of the refund amount allowed as refund to them, had borne by them and not been passed on to the customers - Held that: - vide Circular Dated 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, the Board has clarified that to satisfy the condition of unjust enrichment, certificate from Chartered Accountant would suffice, but later further clarified that the Chartered Accountant should also be the statutory auditor of the claimant company in its subsequent Circular dated 8.7.2010. Further, it is clarified that once a certificate from Chartered Accountant, who is also statutory auditor, if filed by the appellant, then there is no need for insisting on production of audited Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account. In these circumstances, the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), that the appellant by including the refund amount as expenses in their profit and loss account and hence the burden must have been passed on to their customers is without any corroborative evidence - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|