TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al) Order 1. Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. KTR Couplings (India) Ltd., Pune (the respondents herein) had imported different types of couplings contained in nine packages and had filed the Bill of Entry No. 733252 dt. 2.11.2004 in respect of the same. The duty payable on the same was assessed at ₹ 4,19,246/- which was paid by the respondents on 8.11.2004. On examination, it was found that one package was received less and only eight packages were received instead of nine packages. The matter was referred to the shipping company and the supplier and it was confirmed that one package was short shipped. Therefore, the respondents requested for re-assessment of the Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished by way of aforesaid evidences that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by them to any other person. 4. There are plethora of case laws which hold that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply when the amount is shown as receivable in the balance sheet. Some of the case laws by way illustration in this regard are cited below:- (i) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs. CC - 2000 (126) ELT 1014 (Tri.) (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Unit, vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2003 (155) ELT 523 (Tri. Del) (iii) Brindavan Tex Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (196) ELT 61 (Tri. Del) 5. The short landing of one package is an admitted fact on record. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the authorities concerned that the incidence of duty on the raw material, in respect of which, refund is claimed, has not been passed on by the importer to anybody else. This is precisely what the respondents have done. They have produced the Chartered Account's certificate, Profit and Loss Account and the balance sheets for the relevant years to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to anybody else. Therefore, the refund claim has been rightly allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Another case law i.e. Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal vs. CCE -2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) relied upon by the Revenue also does not help them as it lays down the general guidelines in respect of the doctrine of unjust enrichment wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
