Case Law Details
Pelican Rubber Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Introduction: In a landmark case of Pelican Rubber Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad gave a significant ruling regarding proof of duty incidence. It emphasized that a Chartered Accountant’s (CA) certificate alone isn’t sufficient to prove the incidence of duty, remanding the case back to the Original Authority for re-examination.
Analysis: The main issue revolved around the principle of unjust enrichment, as stipulated under Sections 27(2)(a) & 28D of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant, Pelican Rubber Ltd, claimed a refund which the Original Authority granted based on a prior CESTAT order. However, the Department filed an appeal, asserting the Original Authority didn’t examine the unjust enrichment aspect.
The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Department, arguing that the Appellant had failed to adequately prove they hadn’t passed on the duty burden. While the Appellant relied on a CA Certificate stating they hadn’t transferred the customs duty amount, the tribunal indicated that a CA Certificate by itself couldn’t prove this point definitively.
The CESTAT ruling set a vital precedent, indicating that further evidence besides the CA Certificate would be needed to ascertain whether the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
