Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter VA — Indicating amount of duty in the price of goods, etc., for purpose of refund.

Section 28C. Price of goods to indicate the amount of duty paid thereon

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Price of goods to indicate the amount of duty paid thereon. — Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, every person who is liable to pay duty on any goods shall, at the time of clearance of the goods, prominently indicate in all the documents relating to assessment, sales invoice, and other like documents, the amount of such duty which will form part of the price at which such goods are to be sold.

Judgments on Section 28C

  • M/S Patanjali Foods Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.) Appellant(S) Versus Union Of India vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 19 May 2025. Encashment of a bank guarantee furnished merely as security pursuant to a court's interim order cannot be treated as duty 'paid' under Section 27 of the Customs Act, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply…
  • Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 24 Jan 2023. A self-assessment recorded in a bill of entry is itself an appealable order under Section 128, and no refund can be claimed or entertained under Section 27 until that self-assessment is modified in accordance with law,…
  • Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi — CESTAT, 17 Mar 2025. A Chartered Accountant's certificate, consistent with the financial statements showing the duty as receivable, cannot be lightly brushed aside without cogent evidence from Revenue that the certificate is incorrect or…
  • United Telelinks Bangalore Ltd vs Bangalore-Cus — CESTAT, 11 Jul 2024. Once an importer produces a Chartered Accountant's certificate supported by the balance sheet showing the duty incidence was not passed on—particularly where the duty was paid under protest—the onus shifts to the…
  • The Daily Thanthi vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) — Madras High Court, 25 Jan 2021. Amounts deposited 'under protest' at the appellate stage, in the nature of a pre-deposit under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, must be refunded without invoking the unjust enrichment bar or limitation of Section…
  • M/S Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 20 Feb 2020. Where the imported goods are incapable of being sold or passed on and there is no consumer or end-user, an order diverting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund for failure to rebut the unjust-enrichment presumption,…
  • New Delhi vs U T Electronics Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 24 Dec 2019. Under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 the presumption that the duty incidence was passed on is rebuttable, and merely showing the duty as recoverable in the profit and loss account does not prove unjust enrichment…
  • Akshar Telecom Pvt Ltd vs Jaipur-I — CESTAT, 16 Sep 2019. An importer discharges the unjust enrichment burden where a categorical Chartered Accountant's certificate that the duty incidence was not passed on is corroborated by the refund being shown as a receivable in the books…
  • Adarsh Metal Corporation vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur, 11 Aug 1992. Duty collected without authority of law is a payment under mistake under Section 72 of the Contract Act carrying a binding Article 265 duty of restitution, and the Department cannot defeat a refund already due under an…
  • Petitioners vs State Of Odisha And Others… . Opposite… — Orissa High Court, 9 Oct 2012. In a taxing statute there is no equity about a tax and no presumption as to tax — nothing is to be read in, nothing implied; one can only look fairly at the language used, so where the entry tax definition covers goods…