TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri A. K. Menon, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N. A. Sayad, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order] - This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 171(Gr.VI)/2007 (JNCH) dated. 28.7.2007. 2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellant, provided a contract for "Upgradation of Facilities at Multipurpose Berth located in Bulk Terminal at JN Port for Handling Liquid Bulk Cargoes" by the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi. The appellant accordingly registered the contract for import of machines/equipment/spares required for up gradation of facilities at the multipurpose berth Bulk Terminal, JNPT from USA under the provisions of Project Import Regulations, and deposited an amount of Rs.4,28,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Indore as reported at [2001 (136) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.-Del.)], Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. Innova Polypack Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (29) ELT 350(Tri.-Bang.) and V .R. Equipment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (I) Mumbai [2007 (217) ELT 277 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. It is his submission that all these case laws were produced before the lower authority. 4. The Ld. SDR on the other hand would submits that the adjudicating authority had gone into the documents which were submitted to him and has came to the conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence of not passing of the incidence of the duty by the appellant. It is his submission that the appellant had not been able to justify the refund claim on the ground of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant, it is felt that it was also incumbent upon the original assessing authority to independently be satisfied that the amount had not been passed on. Their plea that the amount was shown as 'recoverable' and therefore not passed on as a burden to their buyers also needs to be proved incontrovertibly by records. Even now, the Appellants have not been able to prove beyond an iota of doubt that the burden of the amount had not been passed on". The main reason to uphold the order seems to be that the appellants contention that the amount shown in the balance sheet as recoverable from Customs is not a sufficient proof to establish that the burden is not passed on to the buyer. To my mind this could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
