SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 138

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.VENKATASWAMI
Assistant Collector Of Customs – Appellant
Versus
Anam Electrical Manufacturing Company – Respondent


ORDER

Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. So far as the question of levy of surcharge of ten percent which is in issue herein is concerned, we affirm the judgment and order of the Madras High Court. So far as the question of refund is concerned, it is obvious that it shall be governed by the law declared in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India1, read with clause (6) of the format order, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, which is as follows :

"Where a refund application or an appeal is preferred under and in accordance with the directions (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, the same shall be entertained only if the applicant for refund/appellant files affidavit stating that he has not passed on the burden of the duty, which is claimed by way of refund, to another person. In case the applicant for refund is a company or a society, the affidavit shall be sworn by the Managing Director or the Principle Officer of the Company or the Society, as the case may be. Such an affidavit shall be treated as an averment/ assertion which an applicant for refund has to make in terms of the judgment in Mafatlal."

3. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

FORMAT

Pursuant to










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top