Order Date – 23 June 2023

Parties: Pelican Rubber Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad - Customs

Facts – 

• The Appellants, Pelican Rubber Ltd, filed a refund claim which was rejected holding that Appellants have failed to submit proper documents to prove that they had not passed on the burden of duty which was sought to be refunded.

Issue – 

• Whether Appellants have passed on the burden of duty which was sought to be refunded?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the appellants have adduced a CA Certificate in support of their not having passed on the incidence. They have also submitted that the said amount was shown as “Taxes/duty recoverable” in their Books of Account.
• It is also noted that in impugned OIA, the Appellate Authority doubted the bonafide of CA’s Certificate dated 27.02.2017, as it was related to fine and penalty and not duty. However, CA Certificate dated 27.02.2017 from C. Narayan filed with Appeal and it does not indicate fine or penalty but duty. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be referred back to the Original Authority to go through the documents furnished by them.
• It is however to be noted that merely CA Certificate per se cannot be the sole ground for proving that they have not passed on the incidence of duty, if the sanctioning authority is not satisfied with the documents and he may also rely in addition on any other documents in order to come to the conclusion as to whether duty incidence has been passed on to customer or not in the facts of the case.
• The Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.

Custom clearance charges in india