2020 (2) TMI 357 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Customs

Head Note / Extract:
Refund of amount deposited with Customs - amount has been paid by appellant on their own account - Advance license scheme - violation of actual user condition, the condition on which license was granted - HELD THAT:- Although it is the case of the Appellants that the said amount has been paid by them under duress but it has nowhere mentioned in the letter dated 8.10.2007 or in any other communication by the Appellant to the Department nor any other communication which substantiate the argument of duress has been brought on record. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the Appellant that the aforesaid amount has been paid by the Appellant from their own account, but the wordings of the order dated 18.4.2001 are on their own account. There is a big difference between the meaning of the words from their own account and on their own account. The Appellant has to establish that the amount has been paid by them on their own account which they failed to establish through any of the documentary evidence produced by them. It is true that the revenue, in the Appeal filed by M/s. Kunal Overseas Ltd. before this Tribunal against the Order-in-Original dated 18.4.2001 opposed its request to reduce the pre-deposit amount by the amount of ₹ 20 lacs paid by the Appellants herein, but that does not mean that it is the stand of the Revenue or that it has been pleaded by the Revenue that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 20 lacs was paid by the Appellant herein on its own account and not on account of the importer. The Appellant has to stand on its own legs and establish that they have paid the aforesaid amount of ₹ 20 lacs on their own account, which they failed to establish. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.