TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods relied by the Revenue - the declared price be accepted as the transaction value - appeal of revenue dismissed. Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellant has been able to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on to the customers and their claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The appellant has produced all the relevant documents i.e., C.A. Certificate, balance sheet, challans, but the same were not considered - On perusal of the balance sheet for the financial year ending 31-3-2006, we find that during the relevant period, the excess duty paid by the appellant has been absorbed by them and shown by them as receivables from the department, which is duly supported by the Chartered A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /7.2 US $ for 20/40/70 deniers respectively. The appellants had cleared the goods at the enhanced value paying an additional amount of ₹ 1,85,827/- (One Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven) by TR-6 Challan No. 10029931, dated 9-2-2005. The appellant had imported the goods from Korea for using as an input for manufacture of final product. After the clearance of the consignment it has been sent to the godown of the appellants in Tirupur. The appellant contested the enhancement and requested for reassessment. The Assistant Commissioner had vide his OIO No. 250/2005, dated 27-7-2005, rejected the declared value and confirmed the enhanced value under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Aggrieved by the Order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner vide his OIO No. 09/2007, dated 21-1-2008 was pleased to conclude the matter by sanctioning the refund claim and transferring the same to Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by the Order, the appellants had filed an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli had vide his O-I-A No. 41/2008, dated 18-12-2008 sanctioned the refund claim of ₹ 1,85,827/- and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act. The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Trichy, in OIA No. 41/2008, dated 18-12-2008, being appeal No. C/38/2009. 3. The ld. counsel Shri Rabeen Jayaram, advocate, appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, from the sale invoices issued by the appellants for their final products, the additional duty paid to the department has not be realised from the buyers. Therefore, this amount is liable to be refunded to the appellant assessee. He also submitted that the refund claim was on 5-4-2005 but they finally sanctioned it only on 21-1-2008. Hence, the appellant assessee is also entitled for interest on refund. He relied on the following case laws :- 1. Superintending Engineer v. CCE, Trichy - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 303 (Tri.-Chennai) 2. Cargill Foods India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III - 2010 (262) E.L.T. 691 (Tri.-Mumbai) 3. CC (Exports), Chennai v. BPL Ltd. - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 526 (Mad.) 4. Commissioner v. Jindal Strips ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available in India, and the same was resorted to by the lower authority. Thus the revision of value under Rule 8 is in order. He also submitted that vide letter dated 8-2-2005, upward revision of the price of the cargo and the quantum of revised price was also specified by the importer himself and the question of allowing the importer opportunity to defend the quoted price does not arise. He further submitted that the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) seeks to restore the invoice price for assessment purpose which is not in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and the OIA is not legal and proper. In view of the above reasons, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. He relied on the following case laws : 1. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also compared with the quantity of the yarn imported in the present consignment and compared to the quantity of the goods relied by the Revenue. The Appellate Authority has given a detailed finding compared to the non-speaking order of the adjudicating authority. We hold that the declared price be accepted as the transaction value. Therefore, we do not find only infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-9-2005 and there is no merits in the appeal filled by the Revenue. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be upheld. 6. As regards the assessee s appeal, we find that consequent to the Commissioner (Appeal) order dated 30-9-2005, the appellants filed consequential refund. Whereas the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
