TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the appellant could not establish that the incidence of the refund amount allowed as refund to them, had borne by them and not been passed on to the customers - Held that: - vide Circular Dated 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, the Board has clarified that to satisfy the condition of unjust enrichment, certificate from Chartered Accountant would suffice, but later further clarified that the Chartered Accountant should also be the statutory auditor of the claimant company in its subsequent Circular dated 8.7.2010. Further, it is clarified that once a certificate from Chartered Accountant, who is also statutory auditor, if filed by the appellant, then there is no need for insisting on production of audited Balance Sheet and Prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, Revenue filed appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who inturn, set-aside the orders of the adjudicating authority and allowed the Revenue's appeal. In case of Appeal No. C/264/2012-SM, the refund sanctioned to the appellant mentioned as above, after Revenue filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals), was proposed to be recovered by issuing a SCN, which later on adjudication was confirmed. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate Shri S. J. Vyas for the appellant submits that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has set aside the impugned order of the adjudicating authority on two grounds, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said amount has been included in the expenses of the company and charged to profit and loss account, thus the burden of the duty must have been passed to the customers is an erroneous finding, based on assumption presumption, hence, untenable in law. He submits that consistently the CBEC has issued circulars, viz. bearing No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 and 18/2010-Cus dated 08.07.2010, whereunder, it is clarified that for the purpose of verifying the issue of unjust enrichment, certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, who is also the statutory auditor would be sufficient for sanctioning the refund. Further, he has submitted that this Tribunal in a series of cases including their own case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) to show that the VAT/CST was not paid on the imported goods in the impugned order except observing that VAT/CST amount is not mentioned against each of the imported items cleared/sold as such with the main machines accordingly they failed to fulfil the condition of the Notification. 8. On the issue of unjust enrichment, I find that the issue is more or less settled in the aforesaid judgements of this Tribunal involving similar facts and circumstances. Needless to emphasize, to facilitate processing of 4% SAD refunds quickly, even though initially in its Circular Dated 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008, the Board has clarified that to satisfy the condition of unjust enrichment, certificate from Chartered Accountant would suffice, but later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
