2016 (8) TMI 1248 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - Larger Bench in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs 2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB) , has categorically observed that non-mentioning of realization of additional duty of Customs on the invoice ipso facto shows that duty was not recovered from the buyer. Once such a fact comes out, it was left to Revenue to lead evidence of unjust enrichment. But that was not done - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, refund of additional duty of Customs, denial of claim due to lack of documents, unjust enrichment, application of legal precedent

The judgment addresses the issue of delay in filing the appeal, where the appellant cited reasons beyond their control for the 21-day delay. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant clarified that there was no intentional or deliberate delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, considering the difficulties faced by the appellant, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

Moving on to the merit of the case, the appellant contended that the additional duty of Customs had not been refunded, with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allegedly ignoring the documents submitted by the appellant and passing an unfavorable order. On the contrary, the Revenue argued that without proper documentation, the relevant claim could not be accepted.

After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the case on its merits following the condonation of the delay. It was highlighted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to apply the legal principles established by a Larger Bench decision. The Tribunal emphasized that non-mentioning of the realization of additional duty of Customs on the invoice implied that the duty was not recovered from the buyer, shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove unjust enrichment. However, as the Revenue failed to provide such evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) unjustly denied relief to the appellant without valid reasons. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal.

In the final decision, both the Miscellaneous Application (COD) and the appeal were allowed based on the considerations outlined above, emphasizing the importance of applying legal precedents and principles in adjudicating such matters.