TIOL-DDT 655 · Thursday, 12 July 2007

From our Legal Corner - tomorrow's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

Refund of anti-dumping duty - Question of unjust enrichment in Sec 27 of Customs Act cannot have any impact on special provisions contained in Sec 9A(2) : Tribunal

THE appellant imported Vitrified Tiles from China and dispute arose as to whether the Anti Dumping Duty is leviable on such items. The issue attained finality as they approached the Settlement Commission on the issue. During the pendency of the issue before the Settlement Commission appellants paid an amount of Rs.40.63 lakhs. The Settlement Commission accepted application of appellant and settled liability to the extent of Rs.31.40 lakhs.

The appellant later filed a refund claim for the excess amount deposited by them with the authorities. Naturally, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the imported tiles were used by them for a project and concluded that refund could be sanctioned but had to be credited in to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) too held against the appellant.

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance for pre-deposit in 1999 - Petitioner files application in 2007 for restoration - Tribunal's order dismissing restoration application upheld : Allahabad HC

Taking suomotu credit when duty paid in excess - Matter referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal

IT was only last week that we carried the news "Self assessment and Self payment of duty are envisaged in law but not taking Self refund since if the same is allowed, it may lead to a situation like amendment of passport by a passport holder himself and so on " while reporting the Tribunal decision in the case of Radhakrishna Synthetics []. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Comfit Sanitary Napkin (I) Pvt. Ltd..[].

Acquisition of marketing rights is depreciable asset - Interest paid on loan taken for acquisition to be added to cost of capital asset - Front-end fee paid to bank not allowable but depreciation cannot be denied : ITAT

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com

cited in this story