2007 (9) TMI 473 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the Appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment in relation to a sanctioned refund claim and whether the Appellant is entitled to a refund with interest.

Summary:

Background:
The Appellant imported Ball Bearings, paid Import Duty, and faced a Show Cause Notice demanding differential duty. After a Settlement Application and subsequent refund claim, the Asst. Commissioner sanctioned the refund but directed it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, leading to the appeal.

Appellant's Arguments:
The Appellant presented documents including Balance Sheets, a Chartered Accountant's Certificate, and sales Invoices to demonstrate that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. The Appellant argued that the presumption of unjust enrichment was rebutted, showing a loss even without considering the refund amount.

Revenue's Position:
The Revenue contended that non-compliance with Section 28C implied the burden was passed on to buyers. However, they did not discredit the Appellant's submitted documents.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the Appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment. The documents provided corroborated each other, indicating that the duty incidence was not transferred to buyers. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases cited by the Revenue and ordered the refund amount to be paid to the Appellant with interest, overturning the lower authorities' decision to credit it to the Consumer Welfare Fund.