Petitioner challenged lack of refund from Settlement Commission. Court directed Deputy Commissioner to accept additional evidence or other proof of no duty incidence within two weeks. Costs to officer dropped; no order. Disposed.
Direction to Deputy Commissioner to accept documents or alternative evidence within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION NO.6067 OF 2006
M/s.M.R. Corporation .. Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India & Others .. Respondents.
Mr.S.N. Kantawala i/by Uday P. Warunjikar for the
petitioner.
Mr.P.S. Jetly with Mr.Y.R. Mishra and Mr.M.D.
Sharma for the respondents.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE, &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Kantawala in support of this
petition. Mr.Jetly appears for the respondents.
2. The petition has been filed in view of the
decision of the Settlement Commission a year before in
September, 2005. The petitioner applied for refund as
per that order on 2nd/3rd May, 2006 but since that did
not meet any success, he was required to file this
petition.
3. After the petition was filed, the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs has written a letter to the
2
petitioners on 20th September, 2006 in response to an
earlier reminder by the petitioners dated 20th June,
2006 that the refund application will have to be
accompanied by the documents evidencing that there was
no unjust enrichment. This is to show that the duty
incidence has not been passed on to other persons. The
officer has asked the petitioner to produce the
following documents.
1. Balance sheet duly audited by the
Chartered Accountant.
2. Cost-sheet.
3. Sales Invoices if the goods have been
sold to any other person.
4. Any other supporting documents.
4. Mr.Jetly, on instructions of the officer
present in Court, makes a statement that after the
petitioner tenders these documents, an appropriate
order will be passed within two weeks therefrom.
5. Mr.Kantawala states that if there is any
difficulty in tendering the documents sought for, the
petitioner may furnish some other evidence for the
same purpose namely that the duty incidence is not
passed on to other persons.
3
6. The petition stands disposed of in terms of
this order.
7. We had passed an order on 21st September, 2006
that the officer concerned must explain as to why cost
should not be directed to be paid by him.
Mr.Kantawala is not pressing for any cost. Therefore,
there will not be any order as to costs.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether refund order requires documents evidencing lack of unjust enrichment
Whether officer must explain delay in refund order
Whether cost should be directed to be paid by officer
M.R. Corporation
Union of India
H.L. Gokhale
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court