9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund of excess customs duty, unjust enrichment, proper verification of unjust enrichment, appellate review of refund sanctioning, duty passed on to customers, captive consumption of imported goods, disposal of goods as fuel, inclusion of duty in cost of raw materials and construction. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, regarding the refund of excess customs duty. The Tribunal is examining the case for the third time due to its long history spanning over 17 years. Initially, the import took place in 1989, and the appellant paid duty at a higher rate under protest. The Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the lower rate in November 1996. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund in 1997, which was later set aside by the Appellate Commissioner of Customs in 2000, leading to a series of appeals and directions for de novo consideration. The Assistant Commissioner, in his order dated 25-11-2003, sanctioned the refund claim after considering that the imported goods were not sold or used in manufacturing but disposed of as fuel. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 22-3-2005 raised concerns about the duty being included in the cost of raw materials and construction due to captive consumption of the imported goods by the company. However, the Tribunal found that the imported material was used for the company's own construction work and then given to workers as fuel, with no direct passing on of extra customs duty burden to customers. The Tribunal concluded that under the given circumstances, the order of the Assistant Commissioner sanctioning the refund was appropriate. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for remanding the issue back to the original authority without sufficient grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25-11-2003 and rejecting the need for further interference or unsettling of the settled refund. The judgment was pronounced on 5-10-2006.
|
