9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Unjust enrichment on capital goods, Refund of duty deposit, Burden of proof on passing duty incidence to buyers. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of duty deposit on capital goods and the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Appellant contended that the amount deposited was not subject to unjust enrichment as it was towards potential duty liability on excess value. However, the Respondent argued that the duty amount was deposited based on assessment and the burden of proof regarding passing on the duty incidence to buyers was not discharged by the Appellant. Upon reviewing the case record and submissions, it was noted that the duty amount was initially assessed based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate, leading to subsequent reassessment and duty reduction. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, citing the Appellant's failure to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers, as required by Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was deemed applicable to capital goods, as supported by relevant case law. The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyers, as evidenced by the report. Citing precedents such as Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. and others, it was concluded that the appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment on capital goods was not met. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision to reject the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of proving non-passing of duty incidence to buyers for cases involving capital goods. The application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment was affirmed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA.
|
