M/S Z.V. Steel Pvt. Ltd vs Cc (Export) Mumbai

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal30 January 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. C/306/12

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a refund claim of SAD is made, the principle of unjust enrichment is not satisfied if the claimant's accounts show the refunded amount as debited to purchases rather than as a receivable, since such debiting indicates that the duty burden has been passed on to the buyer. Where the appellant offers no convincing reason to displace the adjudicating authority's finding on unjust enrichment, and has failed to appear on repeated listings without seeking adjournment, the appeal may be rejected on that basis.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV APPEAL NO. C/306/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 25/MCH/Assistant Commissioner/Refund (Export)/2012 dated 27.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

M/s Z.V. Steel Pvt. Ltd.

: Appellant Versus

CC (Export) Mumbai : Respondent

Appearance None : For Appellant Shri S.J. Shahu, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing : 30.01.2015 Date of Decision: 30.01.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: P.S. Pruthi:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the refund of 4% SAD was passed on by the appellant to buyer and that they do not fulfil the requirement of the principle of unjust enrichment as the Chartered Accountant Certificate only mentions that the refund being claimed is not shown in the copies of the balance amount as Amount due as refund of Additional duty of Customs but has been debited to purchases. Learned AR states that, according to the Board Circular 16/2008 dated 13.10.2008, a Balance sheet is required to show that the amount is receivable to satisfy the bar of unjust enrichment.

2. The appellant has not came up with any convincing reason to counter the view of the Commissioner (Appeals). Amount debited to purchases implies that duty burden has been passed. I also note that the appellant has not appeared on last four occasion as well as today and neither any request for adjournment has ever been made. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter.

3. Appeal is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

(P.S. Pruthi)

Member (Technical)

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