9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying exemption notification benefit and refund claim based on unjust enrichment. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal denying the benefit of Notification No. 65/88 to the imported Black & White Thermal Printers for medical use. Initially, the goods were cleared on payment of Customs duty as the benefit of the notification was not claimed. A refund claim was later filed by the respondents before the Original Authority, which was rejected on the grounds that the goods did not qualify as an accessory to the ultra sound scanner under the notification and that the claim was hit by unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to an appeal to the CEGAT, which remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the respondent's appeal, prompting the Revenue to file the current appeal based on the unjust enrichment argument. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the price collected by the respondents from the buyer included the duty, making it subject to unjust enrichment. Additionally, they contended that the imported equipment could not be considered an accessory to the ultra sound scanner, thus not qualifying for the exemption notification. The Revenue also cited a previous case, Priya Blue, to support their position that no refund could be granted when the assessment had not been challenged. However, upon careful review of the case records, the Tribunal found that the imported equipment was specifically designed for medical diagnostic equipment like ultra sound scanner systems and provided detailed black & white images quickly, making it eligible for customs duty exemption under the notification. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the equipment could be treated as an accessory to ultra sound scanner systems and therefore entitled to the exemption. Regarding the unjust enrichment issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly noted that the supplies were made under a specific purchase order to the Government of Uttar Pradesh at a set price, indicating that the duty burden had not been passed on to the buyer. Since the duty payable was nil due to the exemption, there was no question of passing on the duty burden. The Tribunal distinguished the Priya Blue case, stating that it did not apply when the benefit of an exemption notification had not been claimed. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Order-in-Appeal to be legal and proper, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.
|
