The Western India Plywood Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. when the appeal was called none appeared for the appellants. a letter dated october 8, 2001, from advocate shri pushya sitaraman, was placed before us with written submissions with prayer on merits.2. the learned sdr relied upon the decision of supreme court in the case of u.o.i. vs. solar pesticides pvt. ltd., 2000 (116) elt 401 (sc) to submit that the facts of case are covered by the decision and the appeal should be rejected. (a) the commissioner (appeals) has held that the duty paid on the spares for use in case of break downs and their own machinery cannot be refunded as the importers had failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding incidence of duty in relation to which the refund is claimed had not been passed on to any other person and were seeking the refund on basis of the bombay high court decision in the case of m/s solar pesticides pvt. ltd., 1992 (57) elt 201 (bom). this view was found by commissioner (appeals) was not to be accepted unanimously, by all high courts and he relied on gujarat high court decision [1990 (62) elt 550] to reject the refund. (b) the hon'ble bombay high court's decision relied upon by the importers has now been found to be not good law, vide their judgment in civil appeal filed by union of india [u.o.i. v/s solar pesticides pvt. ltd. 2000 (116) elt 401 (sc)] (c) since no documentary evidence is brought forth except a statement that proof in form of stock statement and charts was produced in the submissions dated 8.10.2001, the copy said to be annexed to the written statement is not found annexed, nor the copies of revised prices from 1.4.1988 to 2.3.1994 as submitted was found annexed. the submissions are unsubstantiated and therefore not considered.4. in view of our findings, we find no infirmity in the order impugned before us. the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Judgment:
1. When the appeal was called none appeared for the appellants. A letter dated October 8, 2001, from Advocate Shri Pushya Sitaraman, was placed before us with written submissions with prayer on merits.

2. The learned SDR relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. Vs. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC) to submit that the facts of case are covered by the decision and the appeal should be rejected.

(a) The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the duty paid on the spares for use in case of break downs and their own machinery cannot be refunded as the importers had failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding incidence of duty in relation to which the refund is claimed had not been passed on to any other person and were seeking the refund on basis of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., 1992 (57) ELT 201 (Bom).

This view was found by Commissioner (Appeals) was not to be accepted unanimously, by all High Courts and he relied on Gujarat High Court decision [1990 (62) ELT 550] to reject the refund.

(b) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision relied upon by the importers has now been found to be not good law, vide their judgment in Civil Appeal filed by Union of India [U.O.I. V/s Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC)] (c) Since no documentary evidence is brought forth except a statement that proof in form of stock statement and charts was produced in the submissions dated 8.10.2001, the copy said to be annexed to the written statement is not found annexed, nor the copies of revised prices from 1.4.1988 to 2.3.1994 as submitted was found annexed. The submissions are unsubstantiated and therefore not considered.

4. In view of our findings, we find no infirmity in the order impugned before us. The appeal is therefore dismissed.