TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate with R. Dakshina Murthy, Advocate for Appellant Shri K.M. D Souza, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal has been filed by the Appellant, M/s Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, against the order dated 03.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), JNCH, Sheva, Mumbai-II. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had imported Camry cars from M/s Toyota Motor Corporation, Japan (TMC). The Department referred the matter to the GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai to find out whether the TMC has influenced the price for the purpose of arriving at the transaction value on imports. In the meantime the consignments were allowed to be cleared subject to payment of one per cent of revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority had granted the refund after considering various submissions, evidences, documents, information, certificates and details submitted by the Appellant. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Commissioner that the Appellant has not produced all the invoices as prescribed u/s 28 C of the Customs Act and that the EDD amount has been passed on to the customer is incorrect. The documents submitted by them before the adjudicating authority clearly show that the Appellant had neither considered the EDD in the pricing data nor included the same in the invoice raised by the dealers on the ultimate consumers. The pricing pattern adopted by the Appellant and the certificate issued by the CA clearly showed that the invoices did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 wherein the refund amount was shown under the head Other Current Assets supported by CA certificate, pricing data / pattern as well as invoices. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate any of the above facts and passed the impugned order merely on the basis of order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd - 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) holding that the refund would have to pass the test of 'Unjust Enrichment'. He further held that the Appellant had not produced the invoices which is incorrect as the adjudication order clearly states that the refund sanctioning authority has gone through the invoices also. We find that there has been no discussion in the impugned order ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
