9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Refund claim rejection, unjust enrichment, interpretation of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, DEPB Scrip payment, remand to Commissioner (Appeals).
Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The original adjudicating authority rejected the claim due to lack of relevant documents and failure to prove that the refund amount had not been passed on to another person. The Commissioner (Appeals) further rejected the claim on the basis that the duty was not paid in cash, rendering the claim not maintainable. Interpretation of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus: The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument regarding General Exemption No. 103, which exempts goods if there is a debit in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scrip, equating it to payment of duty. The appellant relied on a Board Circular clarifying that duty paid through DEPB Scrip should be re-credited on the relevant Scrip instead of refunded in cash. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and set aside the impugned order. Unjust Enrichment: The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, but the Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the appellant's grounds and held that payment through DEPB Scrip amounts to exemption, thus denying the appellant's claim. The Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the issue of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case and pass a new order within 30 days.
|
