TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1051X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been refunded to the appellant without raising the issue of unjust enrichment. The appellants are eligible to the refund claim paid as RD at the time of provisional assessment of the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/14010/2013-SM - Final Order No. A/ 10727/2018 - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. Mannat (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mrs. J. Nagori (A.R.) ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 278/Commr.(A)/JMN/13 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jamnagar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant during the relevant period i.e. from August 2010 to No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added it to the cost of the goods sold; thus the refund amount attained the character of expenditure and therefore, indirectly, passed on to the consumers of the goods. It is her contention that even though in the financial year 2010-11, the amount of refund was shown in the balance sheet under the head short term loans and advances , also being a doubtful recovery, provisions has been made in the balance sheet ended as on 31.03.2011, following the standard accounting policy. It is her contention that merely because the refund amount has been shown as provision being a doubtful recovery, it cannot be construed that the said amount has been charged to profit and loss account and accordingly, the burden of refund amount has been passed on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about its refund, therefore, the conclusion by the authorities below that the refund amount has reduced their profit and consequently, the burden has been passed on to others, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that the limited question involved in the present appeal for determination is: whether the appellant had passed on the burden of refund amount of ₹ 40,36,127/- to others which was deposited with the department at the time of provisional assessment of the imported goods, during the period August 2010 to November 2010. It is not in dispute that for the same period, refund of 1% RD made at other Customs houses have been allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Certificate and also relevant extracts of the balance sheet for the year ended 31.03.2012. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant. Instead of going through other aspects of the case i.e. whether the principles of unjust enrichment is applicable to Revenue deposits being not a duty etc., I am of the view that the appellant has not passed on the burden of the amount claimed as refund to others, as the refund amount shown as Provision in balance sheet of 2010-11, reversed in the subsequent Financial year2011-12. Also, based on the same balance sheet of 2010-11, the 1% RD made at other customs houses, have been refunded to the appellant without raising the issue of unjust enrichment. In these circumstances, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
