2009 (9) TMI 699 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order upholding refund sanctioning and crediting to Consumer Welfare Fund due to lack of evidence for unjust enrichment.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the refund sanctioning and crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the absence of documents for verification of unjust enrichment. The appellant had imported bearings from SKF, and a dispute arose regarding the quantum of discount applicable to such imports, which was resolved in favor of the importers by the Commissioner (Appeals). During the adjudication and appeal proceedings, the appellant imported several consignments and received lower discounts, resulting in higher duty payments made under protest. Subsequently, a refund was claimed. The eligibility of the refund claim was not disputed, but the original authority credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the lack of evidence for unjust enrichment. The appellant submitted evidence such as a balance sheet, a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, and ledger extracts before the Commissioner (Appeals), but these were not admitted under Rule 5(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules. The appellant argued that they were unable to promptly respond to the original authority's request for documentary evidence due to year-end preparations, requesting a remand to submit proof of no unjust enrichment.

The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that they appeared before the original authority and made submissions regarding the eligibility of cash refund. However, due to year-end obligations and delayed response to the original authority's request for evidence, a decision was made to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant later submitted evidence to the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not entertained. The appellant sought a remand to provide proof of no unjust enrichment. The learned JDR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the appellant's plea to produce evidence due to their failure to do so before the original authority, despite specific directions. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and acknowledged that the appellant was delayed in finalizing their annual accounts, preventing timely submission of evidence to the original authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant was granted one month to submit the relied-upon evidence, after which the original authority would reassess the refund claim eligibility, providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Tribunal emphasizing the importance of considering the evidence now presented by the appellant to determine the refund claim's validity after affording the appellants a fair hearing.