Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 672 - HC - CustomsRefund claim - unjust enrichment - duty paid and duty benefit claimed under the notification dated 19th May 2002 for import of goods under advance licences dated 23rd January 1995 and for import of goods under advance licences dated 7th February 1995 - denial of refund on the ground that the respondent did not comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing documents as set out in clause 9 - Held that: - no statutory provision or a provision of statutory rules is shown to us which makes the production of documents listed in clause9 of the prescribed form of refund as mandatory. On the contrary, perusal of clause9 would show that the requirement is not mandatory. Clause9 only contains the list of enclosures which could be submitted along with refund application. Clause9 merely requires the applicant to tick mark against the documents showing that the said documents have been produced with refund application. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of production of documents listed in clause9 of the refund application form is mandatory. The Appellate Tribunal has held that the exempt material was not sold in the local market and was used in the manufacture of exported goods and, therefore, question of passing the incidence does not arise - there is a finding of fact recorded that balance sheet of the respondent produced on record with corresponding ledger accounts clearly show that the amount of deposit is shown in the books of account of the respondent - the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal are on the basis of admitted position recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and in any event, the findings are supported by the documents on record. Refund to be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|