2008 (2) TMI 666 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - the value declared for the imported consignment was enhanced by the authorities - Unjust enrichment - Held that - the excess duty paid was not included in expenses and the same has been shown as current assets as receivable from the Government. The Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on burden of proof regarding passing on of duty liability.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of a refund claim filed by the appellant. The appellant claimed that the value declared for the imported consignment was enhanced by the authorities, leading to an increased duty liability. After succeeding in an appeal against this enhancement, the appellant sought a refund of the excess amount paid. However, both lower authorities rejected the refund claim, citing the failure to prove that the burden of payment had not been passed on to another party.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for the importers to demonstrate that the duty burden was not shifted to any other person. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the Balance Sheets and the lack of reliable documents like sales invoices to support the appellant's claim. Despite the appellant's assertion of exemption from audit due to turnover, the authorities required additional evidence beyond the Chartered Accountant's certification to verify the non-passing on of the duty burden.

The appellant presented a certificate from the Chartered Accountant stating that the excess duty paid was not treated as expenses but accounted for as receivable from the Government under Current Assets, indicating that the burden was not transferred to any other entity. The Tribunal's previous ruling in the case of Corning S.A. v. Commissioner of Central Excise was cited, which supported the appellant's position based on similar circumstances.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, following the precedent established in the Corning S.A. case. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing concrete evidence to establish the non-passing on of duty liability when seeking a refund, emphasizing the significance of proper documentation and verification in such matters.