Deepak International(the Appellant)imported lighting fixtures (impugned goods) for which the Customs Authorities enhanced the value of the impugned goods. The Appellant cleared the impugned goods on payment of higher duty amount of Rs. 3,12,418/-.
Being aggrieved by enhancement of value, the Appellant preferred an Appeal before the Higher Authorities and the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Thereafter, the Appellant filed refund claim of excess duty paid, which was rejected by the Lower Authorities on the ground of unjust enrichment. It was alleged that though the Appellant while issuing invoices to their Customs stamped the same as “extra customs duty deposited vide challan dated 10-3-2006 not charged from the buyers on goods imported vide Bill of Entry No. 24/2006, dated 7-3-2006”, but the Appellant have produced only photocopies of the said invoices and the original do not stand produced being lost by the Appellant.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi.
The Hon’ble CESTAT,Delhi relying upon the decision in the following cases:
CCE, Coimbatore v. Flow Tech Power [2006 (202) E.L.T. 404 (Mad.)] and
Corning S.A. v. CCE, New Delhi [2005 (192) E.L.T. 355 (Tri. – Del.)]
allowed the Appeal and observed that refund of higher duty paid by the Appellant at the time of clearance of goods, should be refunded as the Appellant has produced Chartered Accountant certificate, the invoice showing the stamp of non-passing of duty to the customers and Balance Sheet showing that the said duty is recoverable from the Revenue.
It was further held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that denial on the technical ground of non-production of original invoice is neither justified nor fair.
(Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org)