Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2011 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 785 - AT - CustomsRefund claim - Interest - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid under protest - dutiability of pan masala - the price of the impugned products before the levy and after the levy remained the same is significant for deciding whether there is unjust enrichment - When the respondent reduced the dealers' price, it is very clear that they have taken upon themselves the burden of excise duty - The fact that excise duty was shown in the invoice is not conclusive evidence to say that the excise duty burden has been passed on to the buyers - Hence, the inference of Commissioner is not correct - There are several decisions, which hold that when the Chartered Accountant certifies that the duty burden has not been passed on to the buyers, the same has to be accepted - On going through the impugned order and also the order of the lower authority we do not find any infirmity - Held that there is no unjust enrichment in the present case - Hence, Revenue's appeal is rejected. - the respondent-assessee is eligible for the refund of the amount, they are also eligible for the interest, after 90 days from filing of the refund claim, till the date it is settled, in accordance with law.
|