TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck the money from the Customs. The fact is that the money is not payable was confirmed only in 2001. This is the reason for showing the duty as receivable in the accounts of 2000-01. In our view this explanation is acceptable. Moreover, the appellants have also demonstrated that the prices before import and subsequently remain the same. In our view, sufficient evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove that they have not passed on the duty burden to their buyers. The Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, [ 1999 (3) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT] has rejected the Department's plea that refund of the amount pre-deposited for hearing of an appeal not to be released to the assessee unless it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment was completed. Consequent to the completion of the assessment, the appellants have filed refund application on 20-12-2000 before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The refund is for a sum of Rs. 4,18,574/-. The Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 10-1-2002, credited the refund due to the appellants to the Consumer Welfare Funds on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellants were not successful even before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence they come before the Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri R. N. Viswanath, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate urged the following points :- (i) The appellate authority has ignored the rulings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, all of which clearly showed that the appellants had not passed on the incidence of extra duty deposit made by the appellants at the time of provisional assessment to their customers. (vi) The lower authority misdirected himself in looking for an accounting of the extra duty deposit as receivables during the financial year 1995-96 itself. The Commissioner failed to see as per the guidance note on accounting policies issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants especially accounting standard AS-4, contingent gains should not be recognized in the financial statements until the realization of the gain is virtually certain. This explanation and details of guidance issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was let in as ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount receivable and not in the year 1995. They have explained that in the year 1995, when the imports were made and they were asked to pay extra duty deposit by the Customs, they were not very sure of getting back the money from the Customs. The fact is that the money is not payable was confirmed only in 2001. This is the reason for showing the duty as receivable in the accounts of 2000-01. In our view this explanation is acceptable. Moreover, the appellants have also demonstrated that the prices before import and subsequently remain the same. In our view, sufficient evidence has been produced by the appellants to prove that they have not passed on the duty burden to their buyers. The Tribunal in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
