Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 986 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (11) TMI 986 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - Rejection of refund claim - EDD - 1% extra duty deposit - unjust enrichment - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of C.C., Bangalore Vs. Ecomaster (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (1) TMI 389 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] as the issue is squarely covered. It was held in the case that the amount paid by the assessee was not Customs duty on any imported items but was only a deposit of extra amount. They are asking refund of the same. The Commissioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Order-in-Appeal No. 423/2013 CUS (B) dated 13.11.2015, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case is that the appellant was importing Mechanical seals from their related company, M/s S.K.F. Sweden and their associates companies. Since the appellant is deemed to be related to their foreign suppliers, the Department referred the matter to SVB Mumbai for investigation. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment . Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order passed by the lower authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that EDD was paid in terms of the Board s Circular Nos. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SVB without even an application for refund. He also submitted that EDD is not duty of Customs as per Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962 and is not charged / collected as per Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He also submitted that once it is proved that EDD is in the nature of security deposit with the Department then the principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable for refund of the same. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant has to satisfy all the conditions set-forth for the refund under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.). He further submitted that the appellant has not produced any proof that the incidence of duty burden has not been passed on by him and refund amount was shown as receivable in their books of accounts during the relevant period. 6. After considering the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version