Section 28D. Presumption that incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer

Judgments on Section 28D

• Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc… vs Ms Micromax Informatics Limited — Delhi High Court, 27 Oct 2026. A chartered accountant's certificate cannot be ignored when it is supported by invoices and books of account; together they can rebut the Section 28D presumption of unjust enrichment, and the refund must then go to the…
• Jaina Marketing And Associates vs Union Of India And Ors — Delhi High Court, 30 Mar 2026. Where duty that was never payable is refunded after prolonged departmental delay in re-assessment and refund, interest at the statutory rate is payable from the date of the importer's first re-assessment application to…
• 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,…
• Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 26 Jul 2017. Once an importer's CA certificate and supporting invoices establish that the incidence of CVD was not passed on to customers, unjust enrichment under Section 28D read with Section 27 is not invokable, and refund cannot…
• Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S Be Office Automation Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 4 Dec 2008. The presumption of unjust enrichment under Section 28D applies to second-hand goods as much as to new ones, and a bare Chartered Accountant's certificate unsupported by records cannot rebut it, while recovery of an…
• Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Festo Controls Private Limited — Karnataka High Court, 23 Sep 2025. Under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Circulars 6/2008-Cus, 16/2008-Cus and 18/2010-Cus, a Chartered Accountant's certificate (from a CA who certifies the importer's annual accounts) that the burden of 4%…
• 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…
• Orissa Stevedores Limited vs -Bhubaneswar(Preventive) — CESTAT, 21 Nov 2024. Excess duty paid on provisional assessment on an estimated basis (such as bunkers and ship stores for a coastal run) is in the nature of a deposit or notional amount, not duty, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment under…
• 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…
• Nokia India Sales Pvt Ltd vs Hyderabad - Customs — CESTAT, 24 Jul 2018. An importer's burden of disproving unjust enrichment under Sections 27 and 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 is discharged by an audited Chartered Accountant's certificate with supporting documents showing the duty incidence…
• M/S. Paras Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Exports),… — CESTAT, 30 Dec 2014. In the absence of any legal provision, the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be applied to refund of fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, since the proviso to Section 27(2) and Section 28D confine it to…
• Commissioner Of Customs, Pune vs M/S Atlantic Shipping Pvt. Ltd — CESTAT, 26 Dec 2013. Excess duty paid on provisional assessment, being a payment based on estimate (a deposit or notional amount rather than duty), is refundable on final assessment and the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Sections 27…
• Commissioner Of Customs (Ep), Mumbai vs M/S. Umax Enterprises — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2009. Under the Customs Act, 1962, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the refund of redemption fine and penalty.
• Pfizer Ltd. & 5 Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. — Bombay High Court, 7 Mar 1996. Duty is not refundable where the manufacturer has passed on its incidence to another person, and a writ court will not order refund of duty paid under a mistake of law or ignorance of an exemption notification in…
• Laxmi Starch Limited vs Union Of India — Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana), 29 Apr 1993. A claimant who has passed on the burden of an indirect tax to buyers is not entitled to a refund of excess duty; refund lies only with proof that the claimant bore the burden, under the unjust-enrichment scheme embodied…

All 23 judgments