Case Law Details
Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Introduction: In a recent verdict, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chandigarh upheld the rejection of a refund claim lodged by M/s Himachal Futuristics Communications Limited. The telecom company had submitted a refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing they had paid duty on the software they supplied, which they believed was not chargeable.
Analysis: The contention of the appellant was that they had paid a duty on the software they supplied, for which no duty was payable, and had not recovered the same from the customers. However, the tribunal ruled that the duty paid, as reflected in the invoices, was a sufficient proof that the incidence of duty was passed on to the customers. They also noted that the CA certificate provided by the appellant did not adequately explain how the amount of duty paid was accounted for in their books of accounts. The tribunal further reasoned that the contracts/purchase orders indicated that the consideration paid by MTNL/BSNL was inclusive of taxes payable, meaning there was no concrete evidence that the duty paid by the appellant was not reimbursed by their customers.
Conclusion: The CESTAT Chandigarh, in assessing the legal and factual aspects of the case, upheld the decision of the lower authorities, rejecting the refund claim filed by Himachal Futuristics Communications Limited. The decision emphasizes the significance of correctly accounting for the duty paid in financial records and of demonstrating that such a duty, once paid, has not been passed on to customers when seeking a refund under the Customs Act, 1962.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
