Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.80 seconds)Section 28D in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 July, 2017
46. We also take note of the fact that Assistant
Commissioner of Customs (Refund), New Delhi vide his
Order No. 322/2016 issued from F.No.
VIII(E)20/Refund/ACE/156/2016 dated 18.04.2017 has
sanctioned the refund of Rs. 28,48,587/- to the
appellant namely, M/s. Trust Marketing on the basis of
the facts, which are pari materia and the refund has also
arisen after the judgement of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
the case of M/s. SRF Limited. The learned Assistant
45
C/53523/2018
Commissioner who has sanctioned the refund amount to
the appellant has held that " I find that the application
containing that burden cast upon them to prove that
incidence of duty not passed on to the customers was
successfully discharged by the fact that the amount of
excess duty paid has been shown as receivable
(recoverable) in their financial statement for financial
year 2015-2016 that excess duty was not added to the
cost of final product. Accordingly, I hold that provisions
of unjust enrichment clause under section 28 of the
Customs Act are not applicable to the facts of this case,
hence not invokable". We have been told that the above
mentioned refund orders of Assistant Commissioner
(Refund) has been accepted by the Department and no
appeal has been filed against the same. This very fact
prove that the Department is also convinced that there is
no unjust enrichment in the applicants case. The Hon‟ble
Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of YU
Televentures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that when the
Department has accepted the certificates issued from
same Chartered Accountant, to allow another refund of
46
C/53523/2018
the claimant, there was no valid reason to deny the claim
of same assessee in another case. The relevant extract
of the above decision is reproduced below:
Section 28C in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commr. Of Customs, Air Cargo Unit vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. on 1 May, 2003
19. We proceed to examine the claim of the appellant
that they have not passed on the burden of CVD to the
consumers on the above mentioned three criterion laid
down by this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd.
M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd vs Cce, Delhi Iii on 21 July, 2014
43. Since Hon‟ble Supreme Court observations in case
of Allied Photographics India Ltd. on the aspect of
price, were for a specific situation and cannot generally
39
C/53523/2018
be applied in every situation as has been distinguished in
case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. versus Commissioner of
Customs (Import and General) reported in 2014
(302) E.L.T. 501 (Delhi). The relevant extract of same
is reproduced here below :-
M/S. Srf Polymers Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, (Export), ... on 27 September, 2017
In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
SRF Ltd., (supra) the Court is of the opinion that the claim in
these proceedings has to succeed. A direction is issued to the
respondents to process the petitioner's refund claim and pass
appropriate orders having regard to the fact the petitioner had
filed supporting certificates in the form of a Chartered
Accountant's clarification/certificate etc. claiming that the
benefit sought was not passed on to the customers. The
respondents are further directed to pay the appropriate refund
amount together with interest applicable till date of actual
payment within three weeks from today."
The Customs Act, 1962
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Dabur (India) Limited on 1 April, 2005
2. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Dabur India Ltd.,
[2014 (304) E.L.T. 321 (All.)];