9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Claim for refund of excess duty on import of Champagne bottles rejected on ground of unjust enrichment.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand was the rejection of the appellant's claim for a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 24,842, which was considered as excess duty paid on the import of Champagne bottles. The rejection was based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) had emphasized that the amended provision of Section 28D of the Customs Act necessitated the appellant to conclusively prove, through evidence, that the duty burden had not been transferred to their customers. Since the appellants failed to provide such evidence, the refund claim was deemed to be barred by the principle of unjust enrichment. The appellants had contended in their appeal that their buyers, M/s. Hotel Holiday Inn, plan their menus well in advance based on various factors, including cost, market trends, and rates in competitive hotels. They argued that this demonstrated that the duty burden had not been passed on to their customers. However, the Tribunal found this argument to be insufficient to establish that the excess duty paid had not been recovered from the customers. The Tribunal accepted the J.D.R.'s plea that it was incumbent upon the importer to unequivocally demonstrate that the duty burden had not been shifted to the customers, a burden which the appellants in this case failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
|
