TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate that full customs duty is not hit by unjust enrichment could have been issued by the Chartered Accountant - Further, the stock as on 1.4.2009 and the utilization and costing principles followed in 2008-09 and 2009-10 has not been elaborately dealt in the said Chartered Accountant certificate to satisfy the lower authorities that appellant is not hit by bar of unjust of enrichment. Summary cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed provisionally and later, the assessment was completed resulting in certain excess payment on the imported goods for the year 2008-09. The original authority finalized the assessment and recorded that there is an excess payment of ₹ 57,97,943/- towards the duty liability on the import through Bill of Entry dt. 13.10.2008. The amount was refunded but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tity imported in October 2008 is used beyond March 2009 and if at all full cost shown for the goods of account 2008-09 can only affect that much quantity of Ethylene, suffering higher duty but consumed during the said financial year. Since this practice of costing full value including higher duty was not continued for 2009-10, there can be no unjust enrichment for the Ethylene used after 1.4.2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e financial year 2008-09. This is an admitted fact. The only plea of the appellant is that the import in October 2008 continued to be used in the year 2009-10 and for that year their books of accounts showed customs duty excess payment as receivables . To this extent, Chartered Accountant certificate stating that for 2009-10 no undue unjust enrichment will apply for the refund of the said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions by the lower authorities and our analysis as above, we note that the appellants have not satisfactorily established that the duty burden has not been passed on to third party and as such could not escape the bar of unjust enrichment. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the lower authorities. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. ( Dictated and pronounced in court ) - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
