2007 (3) TMI 429 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of the question of unjust enrichment in relation to the levy on imported natural rubber.
2. Examination of the claim for refund and unjust enrichment by the original authority.
3. Interpretation of the demands of additional duty of customs equal to duty of excise on imported natural rubber.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Tribunal was considering appeals following a remand order by the Supreme Court regarding demands of additional duty of customs on imported natural rubber. The Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to consider the question of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal was instructed to remit the matter back to consider this aspect, emphasizing the need to address the issue of unjust enrichment.

Issue 2:
During the hearing, the appellants argued that the cess paid on imported raw material had not been passed on to the buyers of their final products. They presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate to support their claim. The Supreme Court's judgment in a related case was cited, emphasizing the requirement for reliable evidence to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not transferred to customers. The lower authorities had rejected the refund claim based on the liability to pay cess under the Customs Tariff Act, without examining the question of unjust enrichment.

Issue 3:
A Larger Bench of the Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the Revenue on the substantive issue related to the levy of additional duty of customs on imported rubber. However, the Supreme Court accepted the contrary view taken by the Tribunal in a previous order. The Tribunal followed judicial authorities and set aside the impugned demands in the instant appeals. The Supreme Court's remand order required the original authority to consider the refund claims in light of the question of unjust enrichment, ensuring the party's opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

Overall, the judgment addressed the complex legal issues surrounding the levy of duties on imported natural rubber, the requirement to establish unjust enrichment, and the proper consideration of refund claims in accordance with relevant legal precedents and directives from higher courts.