TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the appellants is vociferous in his contention that they have paid the differential duty only after sale of all the goods was completed. However, on their own admission, all these documents have not been produced before the sanctioning authority - Accordingly, the appellants should be given another opportunity before the original authority to prove their bonafides and to establish that they have indeed completed the sale of goods before they paid up the differential duty to their buyers - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/40692/2017 - Final Order Nos. 42404 /2017 - Dated:- 10-10-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri A.K.S. Moorthy, Advocate, for the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The ground taken by the original authority was his observation though initially the impugned amount was shown as receivables in the balance sheet, however the same was charged off to profit and loss account as per the advice of their auditor, hence, the incidence of duty has been passed on as since the same was charged to profit and loss account. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 upheld the view taken by the original authority and also noted that the importer has not provided sufficient documents to discharge the burden of proof of unjust enrichment. The appeal was therefore rejected. Hence, the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the very fact of the appellants having treated the impugned amount as charged to the profit and loss account will indicate that the incidence of duty has been passed on. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. 5. What is not in dispute is the eligibility of the refund claim. Both the lower authorities agree that the refund claim is sanctionable. However, they hold that the claim did not pass the test of unjust enrichment and accordingly, it requires credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. One of the grounds for this stand is that the importer had not provided sufficient documents with regard to unjust enrichment. In fact, the original authority in his order, while sanctioning the amount ordering its credit to Consumer W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
