M/S. Shoppers Stop Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export), ...
- Case No.Appeal No. C/132/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The party claiming that the incidence of customs duty was not passed on, and so that it was not unjustly enriched, bears the burden of adducing relevant evidence to establish that claim; a bare assertion that it is entitled to produce documents, unsupported by evidence adduced over successive hearings, does not discharge that burden. A Chartered Accountant's certificate is not conclusive evidence that duty incidence was not passed on or that unjust enrichment did not occur; it is believable only where the underlying materials that substantiate its basis are placed before the adjudicating or appellate authority, so that the factual claim can be scrutinised.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 1450/2009 dated 3.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Shoppers Stop Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai Respondent
Appearance
Shri G. Derrick Sam, Advocate, for the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 24.04.2015
Final Order No. 40453 / 2015
Although the adjudication was made on 15.10.2008, appellants plea even today is that it has to get the documents to satisfy that the billing prices of the goods was same with or without payment of higher rate of customs duty on the goods imported. Amendment of Bill of Entry was allowed under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. But Revenue presumed that appellant was unjustly enriched by the extent of differential duty (difference between duty paid and duty claimed to be paid on amendment). Appellant failed to adduce relevant evidence to satisfy the Authority below that it has not collected higher duty and not unjustly enriched at the cost of Revenue.
2. The matter has been fixed from time to time beginning from 14.7.2010. On 6.3.2014 for hearing of the appeal, appellant sought adjournment. When the matter was again refixed for hearing, again on 16.1.2015, appellant sought adjournment. When the matter again came up on 17.4.2015, there was a prayer to call today. Even today there is no evidence adduced by appellant to cross the bar of unjust enrichment alleged by Revenue.
3. Learned counsel submits that Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (302) ELT 501 (Del.) has held that unless there is no other material evidence to the contrary the certificate given by a Chartered Accountant is believable. But the appellant failed to show how the material provided the basis for Chartered Accounts certificate for the scrutiny of the court. Therefore, it fails to get the benefit of the decision of Honble High Court of Delhi.
4. Honble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. BPL Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 526 (Mad.) has held that the Chartered Accountants certificate is not conclusive evidence. The ground materials which shall speak truth of the claim need to be adduced. That not being brought to record, appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free