2007 (4) TMI 493 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 68,18,104.
2. Refund claim hit by bar of unjust enrichment.
3. Interpretation of balance sheet and Schedule F.
4. Prima facie applicability of precedent in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 68,18,104. The adjudicating authority had initially sanctioned the refund of this amount based on the assertion that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate and the balance sheet indicating recoverability from customs authorities. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, alleging that the refund claim was affected by the bar of unjust enrichment.

2. The issue of unjust enrichment was central to the case, with the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the balance sheet and Schedule F did not accurately reflect the claim for refund. In contrast, the Tribunal found that the balance sheet clearly displayed an amount recoverable from the Customs department, totaling approximately Rs. 1.37 crores. Citing a previous decision (Pride Foramer v. CC (I), Mumbai), the Tribunal determined that unjust enrichment did not apply when the balance sheet indicated duty recoverable from customs authorities.

3. The interpretation of the balance sheet and Schedule F played a crucial role in the judgment. The Tribunal scrutinized the balance sheet entries, specifically identifying Rs. 68,18,104 for goods imported under a particular Bill of Entry and Rs. 68,88,060 for goods under another Bill of Entry. By noting that the adjudicating authority had confirmed the inclusion of these amounts as recoverable from customs authorities, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in asserting otherwise.

4. The Tribunal's decision hinged on the prima facie applicability of a precedent set in a similar case, emphasizing that when the balance sheet clearly indicates duty recoverable from customs authorities, the bar of unjust enrichment does not come into play. By aligning with the rationale of the prior decision, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the duty amount and stayed its recovery pending the appeal, thereby upholding the initial sanction of the refund based on the balance sheet entries.