Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 792 - AT - CustomsRefund of duty paid - duty element to the extent of which refund was claimed, was passed on to the buyer or not - refund amount to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund or not? - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the adjudication orders reveals that the Adjudicating Authority has mainly verified the usage of raw materials in the production of the final product between 17.10.2017 and 04.11.2017(19 days) in respect of first BOE/Order and between 27.10.2017 and 04.11.2017 (9 days) in respect of second BOE/Order. However, there is no finding at all as regards the primary contention of the appellant that the Basic Customs Duty itself was not legally payable, but was paid in excess - Further, stock movement is traced from the date of its import, to its usage (19/9 days), but a finding is given to the effect that the same was sufficient to hold the passing on of the duty element. However, there is no finding at all as to what was actually passed on; rather, the exact amount of duty that was passed on is not there which is very vital. The Adjudicating Authority has very comfortably adopted the amount of refund claimed as the amount of duty passed on without demonstrating the specific amount, from the books or the Balance sheet. The impugned order is not sustainable, is liable to be set aside - the matters are remanded to the file of the Adjudicating Authority to determine the above factual matrix after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunities to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|