9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Stay petition filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal directing refund to the respondent. 2. Classification of imported vessel under CTH 89019000. 3. Refund claim filed by respondent. 4. Transfer of refund amount to Consumer Welfare Fund on grounds of unjust enrichment. 5. Appeal by respondent against Order-in-Original directing credit to Consumer Welfare Fund. 6. Appeal by respondent before Tribunal. 7. Grounds for allowing the appeal by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 8. Commercial activities of respondent and profit motive. 9. Interpretation of duty incidence and passing on of duty. 10. Reflecting refundable amount in balance sheet and unjust enrichment considerations. Analysis: 1. The stay petition was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal directing the refund to the respondent, M/s. HOPL. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had allowed the appeal of M/s. HOPL, leading to the refund claim of Rs. 29,52,167/-. 2. The imported vessel was initially classified under CTH 89019000 by M/s. HOPL but was later classified under CTH 89059000 by the Revenue after examination. The Order-in-Appeal upheld the initial classification by M/s. HOPL, resulting in the duty benefit being allowed. 3. Following the Order-in-Appeal, M/s. HOPL filed a refund claim of Rs. 29,52,167/-, which was admitted but later ordered to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. 4. Despite the initial transfer order, subsequent appeals and orders led to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) directing the refund amount to be returned to M/s. HOPL, which was contested by the Revenue through the stay petition. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the commercial activities of M/s. HOPL, noting their engagement in providing offshore supply vessel services with a profit motive. The absence of a direct sale of the vessel did not negate the commercial nature of their services, leading to considerations of duty incidence and passing on. 6. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment to determine the passing on of duty, emphasizing that even indirect passing of duty could be considered. The use of the vessel for commercial purposes with profit motive brought the refund claim under the purview of relevant Customs Act sections. 7. It was highlighted that the duty recoverable from Customs should reflect as current assets, and any indication of duty being passed on would negate the refund claim. The Tribunal found that the balance sheet of M/s. HOPL did not show the claimed amount as receivable, supporting the Revenue's case for stay of the Order-in-Appeal. 8. The Tribunal considered the absence of unjust enrichment based on the balance sheet presentation and the nature of commercial activities undertaken by M/s. HOPL. The stay of the Order-in-Appeal was granted pending appeal disposal.
|
